Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:00, 5 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 04	February 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Without sourcing to verify the connection, a redirect isn't viable here. Star Mississippi 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League Super Strikes

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

Non-notable collectable cards. Nominating for deletion alongside Champions League Super Strikes Update. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Football, and United Kingdom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as Champions League Super Strikes Update. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unlike the other article, which can be deleted, I'd say redirect to Panini Group, as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the redirect if Panini Group mentioned Champions League Super Strikes at all. I'd be happy to add it, unfortunately I can't find any reliable independent reference covering Champions League Super Strikes and its connection to Panini Group. If a redirect were to be added in its current state, it would be confusing. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 6 February 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 Tulsipur, Dang#Education as preferred WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkha Higher Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL before search does not yield any results ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 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) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tulsipur, Dang#Education where the school is already mentioned. Sources not found to establish notability. Rupples (talk) 06:49, 16 February 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 10:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dombroski

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 6 references, 4 are brief items by his university (with two being dead links), one (Bloomberg) has no content other than his title. And the best of the 6 (Ft. Worth) is just an announcement with a short interview. As a result, the content is just a few resume type items. (Author is blocked for improper multiple accounts.) North8000 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 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) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only secondary sources I could find were already in the article. A Bloomberg profile that is only his name and position, and Fort Worth Buisness article that just about him, don't really class as significant coverage. Shaws username . talk . 21:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he likes dinosaurs [1], with a brief mention here [2], but these are not useful for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 13 February 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 10:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylheti calendar

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

Fictional calendar with not a single source to prove its existence. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 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) 18:10, 12 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars of Kanihati

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

Mostly a vanity page and largely consists of WP:SYNTHESIS. Very little sources to support notability claims and some citations in the article make no mention of the family. As per WP:BIOFAMILY, notability of one person is not sufficient for the entire family. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 February 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) 18:10, 12 February 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 05:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Kretzschmar

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

Not seeing notability under WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Their best known work appears to be in collaboration with the Rolling Stones, but most listed sources do not even mention Kretzchmar, or have brief passing mentions. Others are unreliable. Not seeing in-depth coverage anywhere in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likewise, I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in WP:LIBRARY, newspapers.com, archive.org, or Google Books or web searches. The long list of external links in the article does not inspire confidence that there is something out there we're missing, because every one of them that I checked is non-RS, non-independent, or non-significant, except for maybe [3], which is just not enough on its own. Jfire (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as here we have one of the major innovators and pioneers in their fields of art and illustration technology. Please read the article, line by line, an article created in early January (we should be thanking its creator instead of pushing an AfD on them). Many album covers, writings, exhibitions, collaborations and other forms of notable and yes, iconic, contributions have been accomplished by Kretzschmar. A couple more cites should be found or formed from the extensive External links, but that's just a matter for the already existing tags and not an AfDeletion attempt for this very notable personage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that were accurate, wouldn't we be able to find more in-depth coverage of him somewhere? I've read the article line by line and while it certainly describes (often in non-netural terms) an active and working artist, I don't see any evidence of a notable one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If even half of what the article says is true then the non-neutral terms are earned and warranted. There are already a few notable sources or External links, so notability shouldn't be a problem as the article further develops (which is one of the biggest benefits of opening an AfD, which makes more editors aware of the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a WP:SOURCESEXIST argment to me. In your view, what are the top three EL sources (or other sources not in the article) that establish notability? Jfire (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking for better sources. A lithograph of one of their Rolling Stones album covers is in the Museum of Modern Art[4] permanent collection. Elspea756 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find sources to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The amount of ridiculous promotion in the article isn't helping. There are unsourced claims like that "Kretzschmar was associated with New York artists Kenny Scharf, Keith Haring, and Jean Michel Basquiat" with no indication what what being "associated with" is even supposed to mean, or who "associated" them, or how being "associated with" a much more successful artist is supposed to somehow rub off on this other artist. There are also for example claims like that they were in the exhibition "Programmed: Rules, Codes, and Choreographies in Art, 1965–2018" at the Whitney Museum of American Art, but the Whitney Museum's website[5] does not list them among the 41 artists in that show, and a google search for the name of the show and this artist's name turns up only this wikipedia article itself. I think this is unfortunately probably a case where graphic designers of even iconic album covers go unrecognized by the news media and book publishers we typically use as sources, and where the amount of over-the-top promotion in the article has possibly buried any useful information. Elspea756 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One RS piece of information about this artist found on WP:BEFORE, the collaborative lithograph of the album cover for the Rolling Stones, Tattoo You. NO reliable sources for biographical information presented. It appears to be gleaned from artist's statements and interviews. I removed the exhaustive and unsourced list of exhibitions. Most of the claims for Collections were either unsourced, failed verification, or had primary sources. Perhaps some information could be merged inth the Peter Corriston led violation of copyright laws to create "Some Girls" cover, but even that should be integrated into Some Girls#Packaging and artwork. Kretzschmar fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/nomination withdrawn‎. Some are weak, but there are no extant delete !votes Star Mississippi 14:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Meier

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

This article about a writer and businessperson is poorly referenced. I have added a reference to a mention of one of her books, but cannot find other coverage to add and am not clear that she meets WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There was a slightly better referenced version of the article until 2021, but none of the three references in that are reliable and independent. Tacyarg (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, United States of America, and Connecticut. Tacyarg (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 5 February 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) 18:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The usual Kirkus and Pub. Weekly reviews [6], [7]. There's a palliative care doctor with the same name and decent reviews in medical journals, that is a different person; apparently already has an article [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR. She is an Macmillan author and found the book reviews described in the previous comment and several other second-tier (possibly) book review sites. More than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep, see Beeccaynr's sources. I'm only seeing the reviews Oaktree found, which are both about the same book - this doesn't satisfy the typical WP:NAUTHOR rule of thumb of "multiple notable books". I'm just getting bookshop and database listings for The New American Wedding. nb that she published that as Diane Meier Delaney. If anyone finds more reviews, I'm happy to take a second look, ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviews and other sources can help develop the article and support WP:AUTHOR notability. There is 2010 interview-based coverage of her novel The Season of Second Chances in the Connecticut Post, the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews, as well as Hoover, Danise, The Booklist; Vol. 106, Iss. 15, (Apr 1, 2010): 24. ProQuest 235598289 and "The Season of Second Chances", Kane, Julie, Library Journal, 03630277, 3/1/2010, Vol. 135, Issue 4 (via the Wikipedia Library Literary Reference Center Plus); there is also 2002 wedding coverage in The New York Times with some biographical information; for The New American Wedding book, there is a Publishers Weekly review (her author name is listed as Diane Meier Delaney), and a review from Ebster, Deborah M. Library Journal; Vol. 130, Iss. 17, (Oct 15, 2005): 76. ProQuest 196841191. Courtesy ping Asilvering. Beccaynr (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck, I specifically checked PW?! Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So did I, but only managed to find it on the Wikipedia Library, then searched again online. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (as nom). Thanks for finding those sources. If no one else adds them to the article, I'll get to it in a couple of days. Tacyarg (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep per WP:HEY IFF the sources that are promised to be added are actually added. Until then, I request the AfD be re-listed. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 29 February 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Brewer

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

Reads like a family history project, no indication of passing WP:GNG? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG As background, Sandy Hook Pilots were some of the most important pilots in American naval history. Multiple reliable sources confirm Brewer played a key role in the early days of the Sandy Hook Pilots Association and the formation of the Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company. The following secondary sources support his notability.
Russell, Charles Edward (1929). From Sandy Hook to 62°. New York: Century Co. p. 114. OCLC 3804485.
Allen, Edward L. (1922). Pilot Lore From sail to Steam. New York: The United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Benevolent Associations. p. 38.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since GNG and coverage exist. Agree with GregHenderson. The sources support the notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you also wrote both articles Sandy Hook Pilots and Sandy Hook Pilots Association he is not mentioned in either of them? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brewer is not mentioned in the source [9]? Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on an in-depth analysis of the sources. I am not understanding what this person is supposedly notable for. He was born, he was part-owner of three boats, a boat pilot, he started an organization with four others pilots, none of which inherently confers notability. He then got married, had children who had children, then died. The vast lion’s share of the article is not about him at all, but about the boats that he partially owned,. At first glance this looks like a well-sourced article, but it is pieced together with bits of trivia about him, and many sources that do not mention him at all. A source analysis table is offered below. If it is collapsed, click on "show" on the right hand side. My comment continues below the table.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-obituary/81000252/	Death announcement - probably placed by the family as it mentions the funeral is at his daughter's house	in a newspaper	death announcement, no editorial content	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Sandy_Hook_to_62_̊/7KBOAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1	published book		Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-duncuff/81003880/	death announcent for his grandson, likely placed by family	newspaper	It only mentions that Walter Brewer was his grandfather, no editorial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-death/81003478/	Death announcement for his wife, probably placed by family	newspaper	It only mentions that she was married to Walter Brewer, no editorial content	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-went-ashore/75223840/	newspaper	NYTimes	Short press statement that he was a 1/6th owner of a boat that crashed - name check only	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/pilotlorefromsai00unit/page/38/mode/2up?q=Virginia	book published by the Sandy Hook Pilots Association	~	Does not mention him at all, only a boat he partially owned that crashed	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-daily-herald-wm-h-aspinwall/72622612/		newspaper	Short press release about the launch of a boat he partially owned, name check only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-tribune-wreck/72624076/		newspaper	Doesn't mention him at all, it's a press release about a boat wreck	✘ No
https://research.mysticseaport.org/item/l0179721877/	shipping record	shipping record	A search does not find his name; maritime shipping record	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Operations_of_the_U/HIEDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en	published book	Gov't printing office	Does not mention him at all, only the mention of a boat he partially owned that wrecked	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/20464636/	unverifiable - not sure if this is an ad, an announcement or an article - I couldn't find it in a search	NY Times	unverifiable, but seems like an announcement for a meeting	? Unknown
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016025/1880-10-25/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1880&index=1&date2=1881&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&words=America+boat+pilot&proxdistance=5&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=pilot+boat+America&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1	newspaper		Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://research.mysticseaport.org/item/l0179721900/	shipping record	shipping record	Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-leahy/81037234/	newspaper	newspaper	Name check only, he was one of many who inspected a boat	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-world-charitable-fund/81037050/	newspaper		Name check only, stating he was secretary of his organization	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-sandy-hook-pilo/81014483/	Newspaper		Press release that he is 1/5th owner of a company - standard incorporation announcement	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-tribune-combine/81030358/	newpaper		short article on incorporation and some controversy related to it, that mentions him in a name check.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/-pilots/81031012/	newspaper		Article about the controvercy surrounding the company he partially owned, does not mention him by name	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-daily-herald-fees/81035772/	newspaper		Article on the organization controversy, a single name-check only as one of the partners.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This seems like a clear WP:GNG fail to me. If you actually read the sources in the source assessment chart they are all trivial mentions, don't mention him at all and are about other people or boats he partially owned, or the controversy surrounding an organization in which he was a secretary. Also seems like WP:SYNTH. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination and the source analysis from Netherzone, does not pass WP:GNG. Note, there was some previous discussion of a group of articles like this, see Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots where this article is one of a small number remaining that does not have a reason for notability listed, nor has been deleted. Melcous (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am a hearty inclusionist, but I do not see a valid case for notability here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 7 February 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. After much-extended time for discussion (and discounting the precocious IP), there is no clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Pandey

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

non-notable, running mentions, WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, Maharashtra, and Scotland. User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 7 isn't even about this person. Source 4 is fine, but wanting to look like her isn't exactly the type of article used for notability. Rest doesn't help coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator neglected to adhere to WP:BEFORE. The subject of this nomination is a best-selling author of multiple books and a basic Google News search for Deanne Pandey reveals a substantial number of articles, such as this (among others), unequivocally meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. It is hoped that the nominator and the initial voter are not engaged in any form of sockpuppetry within this context. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNA? I've not heard of that source and it links to a blank page. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DNA (Daily News and Analysis) a major news portal, and it's not the only source supporting the topic. If you had conducted a WP:BEFORE check before casting your vote, you would have discovered numerous additional articles, including those from Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, Midday, and many others. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are brief articles, third one is a name drop, fourth is about her and Michael Phelps, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources mentioned above establish notablity well in my opinion. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy overturn and relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1.23.251.79 appears to be a WP:SPA familiar with WP:POLICIES but contributions only to save this DR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikki Panday (Both Pandey/Panday are married) See Special:Contributions/1.23.251.79

Odd that they're intimately familiar with wiki policies but edit while logged out. Would be helpful if they were logged in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @User4edits and @Oaktree b. unable to see in-depth SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as DNA, HT, Midday etc. as pointed out above by anon. Almost all of these sources provide in-depth coverage of her and her work. GSS ^💬 07:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked through all the provided and applied sources, and I think this is a very marginal case. IMHO, there's simply not enough direct detailing to support anything more than the single sentence in the article. It seems the template for all of these articles is usage of the minimum of text and the maximum of images of the subject. Routine entertainment news. This is a BLP. At this point, we don't meet that high bar for sourcing. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting that this (300+ words article) by DNA India, this (350+ words article) by the Time of India, along with this one in the Bengali language by Ananda Bazar, are inadequate to establish notability? These are reliable independent articles that delve directly into her personal life and career in detail, as required by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, this interview, among other, can be used to expand the article. GSS ^💬 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and cited some more sources. GSS ^💬 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and a large-scale content expansion by GSS. She is a "national bestselling" author, Apart from that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that make her pass BASIC & GNG. Note: I am the creator of the article.- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Shadow311 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bonnici

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

AFD requested by 92.52.232.134 reason: Not a notable person. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Limited amount of coverage in RS about her trip to the Eurovision contest [10], but trivial coverage. Interview [11]. This is probably the best [12] and this [13] . Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER#9. Worst case, draftity up to and until the Eurovision Song Contest. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER#11 + #12 by virtue of this from the European Broadcasting Union. Moreover, it's hard for me to extend AGF to 92.52.232.134 as whoever is behind this IP address has also made non-sourced and bogus attempts to contribute to this article, such as this and this. How can their AFD request be taken seriously? This is a waste of time. --ToniSant (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #9 and #12; more than anything else imho I don't think we should consider ADF on the part of the user since she has caused continual vandalism through rollbacks to insert their own version of the page without a source attesting to what she has written (the hypothetical American origins or that she is the sole survivor of a hypothetical tragedy involving her entire family), not to mention citing false merits that her song would have achieved. --Dominikcapuan (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above votes. WP:SINGER is clearly met. Seeing as the AfD was requested by an IP editor who was repeatedly trolling the page (as highlighted above), maybe the nominator (pinging @Shadow311: for this) could consider withdrawing this? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for a standalone article as nearly all significant sources are due to the upcoming Eurovision participation. So far, this is their only notable activity; therefore WP:BLP1E. Would also support draftifying. Grk1011 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per others and the fact that the AfD was requested by a troll who has been vandalizing the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:00, 6 February 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) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Raja

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

The first ref cites the subject’s Wikipedia page, the second and third are about his brief arrest and release. I couldn’t find any better sources so the subject seems not to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with this. Firstly, you deleted the previous info that was edited. Now you're saying that you're gonna delete this because the it's not notable? He is very popular. He has 1.3 Million followers on Twitter. He's a very trendy person but I don't get why you're doing all this. Please stop this and let people actually make some edits on this page. Thank you. TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are reason I believe you shouldn't delete this:

- Adil Raja is a famous journalist

- Adil Raja was the Spokesperson of the Pakistan Ex Servicemen Society

- Adil Raja is a famous whistle blower

- Adil Raja has almost half a million followers on Twitter

- He gets millions of views per month on his tweets

- Adil Raja's YouTube channel was the fastest growing journalist channel but for some reasons, they illegally banned it TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of other information about him that's not included in this page. Maybe if you allow people to add that info, you won't say "seems not to be notable". TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TIRRIT3123: Thanks can you please show reliable independent sources discussing the subject in depth? Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy followers on Twitter, so that doesn't help notability, as you can views on Youtube. Spokesman for the Society is a PR job, which doesn't add to notability. If you can provide articles about his work as a journalist, not stuff he's written, we'd look at that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Mccapra's request for sources. Even for "famous-X" we need citations. I did a quick search in UK newspapers and did not find anything about him being detained (not arrested) in the UK. From the news articles in the wiki page this does not seem to be more than a single incident of not great import. Barring sources that would support his fame, it has to be delete per WP policy. I'll cycle back to see if anything changes. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. There are a ton of different articles on him. Please search "Adil Raja" on Google, then go to news. There are dozens of articles on him. Even by the most popular news companies in Pakistan. There is more relevant information which is missing but you didn't add. Especially about his illegal court martial. The official Pakistan Army Public Relations website released information about that but it's not added. So I think your opinion on him not being important is totally wrong. So, whoever nominated this page for deletion, please undo that. If you have any more questions or counter arguments, please share them. I'll make sure to reply Thank you. WarriorYt43 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a ton of them, please show links here to the three best pieces of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

www.dawn.com/news/amp/1792427

https://www.tribune.com.pk/story/2423051/fia-to-bring-back-adil-raja-other-miscreants-sitting-abroad%3famp=1

https://pakobserver.net/pakistan-armys-former-officers-adil-raja-haider-mehdi-convicted-over-espionage/

www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1091959-adil-raja-admits-to-defaming-serving-officer-in-uk-court 2601:282:1F32:681E:4485:E5DF:7AEA:C1DA (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails RS, disclaimer on page states, "Disclaimer: This information has been collected from Google. If you would like to add or remove any information from this page, please contact us"	1. Sumiya (5 May 2023). "Major Adil Raja Wikipedia, Age, Wife, Family, & Biography". Mag Pakistan. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	2. ^ "Adil Raja 'arrested' in London; Sabir, Moeed booked for sedition". The Express Tribune. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	3. ^ "Youtuber Major (r) Adil Raja released after detained by British police". Daily Pakistan Global. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.

Keep votes provided nothing to evaluate. If someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Army's Official Website's own press release: https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=6679

https://www.dawn.com/news/1792427 WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2421712/adil-raja-arrested-in-london-sabir-moeed-booked-on-sedition-charges

https://www.nation.com.pk/13-Nov-2023/civil-society-protest-outside-quetta-press-club-against-adil-raja

https://arynews.tv/ex-army-officers-convicted-over-espionage/

https://www.geo.tv/latest/520383-pak-army-sentences-2-retired-officers-for-inciting-sedition WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listed half a dozen. These are from the most official news sources in Pakistan, including the Pakistan Army's own press release site. WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of not much it seems, basically rehashing the same press release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a favor and search up Adil Raja on Google, and go to the news section. You'll see dozens of articles. Thank you WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TimothyBlue, your view of the proposed sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable youtuber [14], arrested for reporting. Most "evidence" seems to be faked, does not appear notable outside of having been arrested with a host of others. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable YouTuber?? His channel was one of the fastest growing channels amongst the journalist community in Pakistan. He gained 650K subscribers after half a year of starting his channel. Then it was obviously banned because of mass reports. Now YouTube doesn't even reply to tweets related to his issue. Why is that? Why are they trying to silence him? I really hope Wikipedia doesn't delete this and be an addition to this censorship WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wikipedia non-notability, due to a lack of sources. I have no idea why YouTube is trying to silence him, perhaps ask them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They silenced him because he tells the truth. The Pakistani Establishment is trying to silence him. WarriorYt43 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that has no bearing on the discussion here. Thank you Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not clearly established. Fails independent verifiability too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Currently, nothing notable regarding the individual except his conviction on espionage charges, and some other minor run-ins with law enforcement. Needs more coverage in the press to meet WP:GNG and even, WP:JOURNALIST. Article has potential to be recreated as I believe it is WP:TOOSOON. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 22:05, 6 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Technical Resources

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

Fails WP:NCORP,WP:SIRS. Refs are business news, 404's, press-release. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the $5÷1deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep this close to $1 billion Corporation with tens of thousands of employees. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Can you point me to the place in the Wikipedia notability polcies where it says that the size or value of a company makes them notable, please. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would be surprised if a company that size has never had any controversy. I googled "Volt Information Sciences controversy" and got many results. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have anything, actually. What you did is based on a raw search url which is never a good way of doing it and is illegal as a reference. Controversies don't make for notabilty either. If you WP:THREE references, post them up so we can have a look at them. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have just added History and Controversies to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 10 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Joubert

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

Subject does not fulfill notability criteria, I could not find any sources. The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won. However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South Africa. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Afrikaans article at af:Gideon Joubert has several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I don't think "the page has references" is a valid statement for AfD. Are they reliable independent sources? Three of them are obituaries (one of them can be found online here, one is a link to the publisher's website, two are reviews of his book (which, as mentioned, might be notable). The last reference is sufficiently non-descriptive to make it impossible to be found "Alberts, Louw. Insig, April 1998". Broc (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's beachwear fashion

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting to delete or merge to swimsuit. The premise of the article is out of scope for an encyclopedia and both potentially too broad and too specific ie. lacking in a clear definition. The writing is not encyclopedic but this is because of the fundamental nature of the article is unlikely to be clearly focused. Women can wear anything to the beach, any beachwear can be worn anywhere else (and sunglasses, sandals, hats can be worn other than by just women) and it is not restricted to a particular item of clothing which might narrow it down. Darrelljon (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Darrelljon (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For something that happened first in the 19th Century, we have too many photos of recent women in bikinis. There's some sort of OR going on here. This can be covered under the swimwear article. If you want to create an article on 19th Century beach wear, that could be something different. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much entirely OR, and honestly reads like thinly disguised fetish content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to swimsuit. The article has no clear scope. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally, so how necessary is a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2012, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list of mostly non-notable riders dying, appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motorsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, albeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nominator's rationale EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable sub-list, identical reasoning to a similar recently-deleted article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:44, 23 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Nostik

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

non-notable, virtually every source in the article are self-published NAADAAN (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, Morocco, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : PROMO. Only semi-independent coverage is the MEMRI linked used, and that's barely acceptable. No sourcing found at all, outside of spotify, youtube and the usual suspect list of download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b. First of all, regardless of the notability of the topic, it was written in good faith without any conflict of interest. Second, I've checked the sources in the English article, and while about 8-9 of them are not independent (or dead), and were used only to reference the subject's opinions, the rest are reviews of his books or interviews with the author. Do these not count as "independent"? In any case, if you search on Google only in English, for sure you won't find many independent sources about this topic. Apart from Memri, there's also the paper "Atheism in and out the Moroccan context" cited in the article, and this lecture abstract. Also mentioned in this paper and this article, and this book about atheism. In French, there are many articles which review his books and or include his biography, such as this article about atheism in Morocco, this review of his third book, a review of his second book, his interview with Hamed Abdel Samad translated to French, and this article about best selling books in Morocco (and similar ones such as 1). In German, this interview. In Arabic (Standard and Darija), there are just countless articles by independent newspapers with reviews, interviews, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two French book reviews look fine, the third isn't much help. Interviews don't help notability but you can use them to colour the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His first book has its own article by the way. Ideophagous (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article, but I believe the topic is definitely notable. Nothing in the the guidelines says that the notability has to be proven through English sources only. I've added several sources in my response to Oaktree above. FYI, there was already a discussion on the notability of this topic on frwiki, and the verdict was to keep it. The French version of the article definitely has better sources though. Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, even though some of these are passing mentions I'm not going to create an entire fuss about this. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article I hope that you eventually get to that and any other articles you get to make to avoid such an AfD. :-) NAADAAN (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NAADAAN Apart from adding more reliable sources, what do you suggest to improve the article? Ideophagous (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is decent, although though I suggest it fits the WP:MOS better. The grievance here isn't really about how the article is written, moreover the faulty sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes AUTHOR with a few book reviews, but boy does this need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b feel free to suggest improvements. Ideophagous (talk) 21:47, 5 February 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!} 06:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driver deaths in British motorsport series

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally so how necessary are a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2011, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. If this was narrowed down to bluelinked drivers as recommended in the last AfD, this would make just 3, meaning we have a list of non-notable drivers. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, abeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List of non-notable people that fails WP:LISTN; has not been discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per the rationale of the nominator EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 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!} 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTOU-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The refs should have been added then, but there's a reason this one never made it to the K04QR AfD: I found a few from the 1997–2000 period. Unfortunately that's it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article are all secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV about the station. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Sources in the article are all mill news about operations, the type any station would receive. Sources mentioned above: #3 is mill news about the changing in the station name; #4 mill news announcement about the start of operations ; #5 mill news about the sale of the station. Nothing meets WP:N.

// Timothy :: talk 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 5 February 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) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 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. As this is due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Bludger

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, particularly a lack of WP:SIGCOV. J2m5 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep It would be worth looking into references from the 2007 Australian election era - from memory, The Australian newspaper went on a (rather strange) crusade against this and other websites covering opinion polls after they critiqued how the newspaper was interpreting polls. This might amount to sufficient coverage. As an Australian political nerd, this website is very well known among other Australian political nerds. I suspect that it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: If you have found WP:SIGCOV, you need to link it here, and then that will be that. Otherwise, in my view there are no grounds to keep the article. J2m5 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be difficult to do not because it's not notable but because it's going to be difficult to search, considering my BEFORE search just brought up pages and pages of articles from this news source, and when not it's because another news source quotes it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably keep~~ agree with Nick-D, this is a prominent website for Australian poll-watchers and it's hard to imagine there won't be any sources covering it in some capacity – the difficulty is extracting coverage of the website itself from the gazillion times it has been mentioned in passing to verify some figure or analysis. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because poll watchers like the website doesn't grant it notability... those forms of coverage (citation) are apparently cited below by Spinifex&Sand as reasons to keep the article. So it's still unclear to me what the grounds to keep the article are. I also visit Poll Bludger at least three times a week. J2m5 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I conducted a search re J2m5's request for WP:SIGCOV. Without finding a specific article about Poll Bludger, there were many reputable sources that included references to it. Bearing in mind WP:N Basic Criteria, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”, I think there is enough to achieve notability. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" applied to when such articles treated the subject as one of many elements of focus in the article. The mentions of Poll Bludger in reputable sources are citations of Poll Bludger. By this logic many journalists would have Wikipedia articles, when this is not the case. We cannot feasibly close this AfD without sources being presented which actually focus on Poll Bludger in at least partial depth without it being simply cited as a source.J2m5 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of little cites such as [15]. Worst case scenario we move it to the person who runs the blog. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am currently giving zero weight to the two SOURCESMUSTEXIST arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've come up short on a source search. The best I can find are a master's thesis (not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) that gives a few passing mentions, less-than-significant coverage in "Newspaper Blogs: The Genuine Article or Poor Counterfeits?", and passing mention in "The role of blogging in public deliberation and democracy". But none of these contribute towards SIGCOV, and I'm beginning to doubt that this blog itself has been covered significantly by multiple independent RS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a deeper look into what sources are available. In particular, I was able to track down the spate of Rudd-era coverage Nick-D mentioned.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Norington, Brad (4 August 2007). "Blog's breakfast". The Australian. p. 26.
^ Hills, Rachel (28 October 2007). "Psephological blogger rhythms". The Age. p. 12.
^ Price, Jenna (23 November 2007). "Playing possum with polls and politics". The Canberra Times. p. 9.
^ Shanahan, Dennis (21 February 2008). "Pundits' margin of hypocrisy on polls". The Australian. p. 2.
^ Kerr, Christian (15 June 2009). "Our blogs too analytical, intolerant". The Australian. p. 32.

To my judgement none of the sources give enough coverage to Poll Bludger in particular to meet GNG.

However, they do appear to give enough coverage to justify reviving an article on political blogs in Australia: this article briefly existed in 2006, was redirected to political blog on the understanding its content would be retained there but then the target was itself merged to Blog#Political impact in 2015, which only contains US-related content. The latter decision to merge was done unilaterally and probably seemed innocuous at the time. In hindsight that seems to have been a poor call and someone should probably look into reviving political blog as a full-fledged article as well.

Anyway, my view is now un-redirect political blogs in Australia and merge this article there. – Teratix ₵ 11:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with Teratix's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hern

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

This article was created by a single purpose account and remained largely unsourced for the majority of its life. I do not think he is notable in any way and feel this article is similar to Joy Henderson which I also AFD'd. These are "community organizer" type people who just insert themselves into different causes. I think this is a pretty clearly non-notable individual. None of the articles I can find on him, which are far and few between, show enough for WP:GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local activist means pretty much noting for notability without coverage. This is about all I could find that wasn't from the same Georgia Straight newspaper [16] and it's still not enough. Local notability perhaps, nothing for wikipedia though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my open question from 2022 on the talk page. Dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 02:40, 6 February 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. Rough consensus is that while this may be a notable topic - as per Uncle G's sources - it is already adequately covered in existing articles and retaining this article would increase redundancy (WP:CFORK). Editors are free to redirect the title to wherever it may be appropriate. Sandstein 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass automobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting the neologism 'mass automobility' for deletion (or merge, suggested to history of the automobile or a new article Draft:Personal mobility (transportation)) on the basis the article only had 55 edits ever, 64 views in 30 days, and it duplicates articles including;

car - covers automobility (7293 edits, 172155 views)
automotive city - the urban planning aspect (205 edits, 1,183 views)
car dependency - the social phenomenon (219 edits, 2373 views)
history of the automobile - the level at which it may be regarded as becoming mass uptake (4,132 edits, 42,555 views)
modal share - the share of a mode of transport (400 edits, 2735 views).

The article also introduces the concept of mass automobility as something distinct from automobility which may constitute original research. Darrelljon (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Reads like a student essay (as created in an editor's only contribution), with disjointed content, jumping in one paragraph from fast-food restaurants to appliance mass-production. Agree with nom that this is too overlapping and not cohesive enough. Much of the content is actually about Suburbanization rather than automobility, but nothing is good enough quality to merge somewhere or keep. Even if the previous AFD found sources on the titular concept, that does not mean that we have to keep this as (poorly) written. Just because AFD is not cleanup doesn't mean this is a even good basis for a cleaned-up article. Reywas92^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neologism, a claim that was debunked in the last AFD discussion, and it's not original research as professor James J. Flink at UCI, out of what seems like many people, has written on this specific topic for decades, including for starters xyr 1975 paper Mass automobility: an urban reform that backfired that gets the odd citation here and there.
They even seem to agree with what's in the article at hand. Talking of the 1970s and what happened then, contemporary to Flink's paper, Alan A. Altshuler's 1984 book for example says "The initial shift in expectations came with the dawning realization of what mass automobility on a world scale might mean for the earth's resource base and atmosphere." and proceeds to talk about pollution, safety, and fossil fuels consumption. And here we have an article with a "Negative Consequences" section talking about shifts that happened in the 1960s and 1970s such as anti-pollution and safety measures. Professors Gary S. Cross pf PSU and Rick Szostak of UA talked about how "Mass automobility led to the decline of public transportation and encouraged greater dispersion of workplaces and residential neighborhoods." in their 1995 book. And here we have an article that talks about the effects upon suburbanization.
Then there are things that Wikipedia doesn't cover yet about mass automobility, such as professor David Gartman of the University of South Alabama in his 1994 book linking it to democratization, and a perceived connection to social mobility as evidenced by movies of the time such as the 1911 The Girl and the Chauffer.
The problem here is not the article, but the fact that you are unwilling to find sources and work on it instead of nominating it for deletion multiple times with the debunked "neologism" rationale.
Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have an article Effects of cars (which has 178 edits and 646 views) which covers negative impact on the environment. 'Mass transit' is a redirect to public transport. Darrelljon (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits and views has no relationship with notability. Please stop making that argument. Star Mississippi 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mass Rail Transit, Mass Rapid Transit and Mass Rapid Transit System redirect or disambig to other articles. As does Mass consumption, Mass manipulation and Mass opinion. Darrelljon (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did Flink, Altshuler, Cross, Szostak or Gartman distinguish mass automobility from any of the other concepts?--Darrelljon (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here that is not better covered in existing articles. Just because something is referred to differently by a prof. doesn't mean it is a different concept, much less one with significant coverage. Also concerned about giving undue weight to the profs that prefer to use this term. ForksForks (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asker International School

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

Clearly no sign of notability. Fails WP: SCH Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Norway. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Schools should pass WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCH is a failed proposal. A WP:BEFORE search has a lot of hits for primary sources. Better sources may exist in Norwegian language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll add that this nomination for deletion was made 4 minutes after the page was created. Although it would be great if pages were created with enough sources to show notability, I think more time should be given and a discussion opened on the - as yet uncreated - talk page regarding notability per WP:DEMOLISH before rushing to AfD. AfD asks editors to spend a lot more than 4 minutes each in evaluating sources, and sometimes it can be avoided with an in page source discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources about the various localities of the school, since it has grown so much during its first ten years Geschichte (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am currently writing and contributing to the article. I believe it would be beneficial to revisit the article after a few days for a thorough review. If it meets the notability criteria, it can be safeguarded from deletion. HimSur9 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, it can be striked since it's based on consensus. Per research, the subject meets no notability. Otuọcha (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current sources are too much of a mishmash, with too many primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only primary sources. notability guidelines for organizations won't allow to qualify this page as notable. NiLok223 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sourcing. Cortador (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the article creator - it seems that you unfortunately have placed too much emphasis on the internal workings of the school, where you should have focused more on the political discussions about the school, if Asker should have such a school and where it should be located. This would have shown political relevance and ramifications. Nobody cares if they have a playground. You have unfortunately found sources via a search engine, which differ wildly both in quality and whether they are even desirable as sources on Wikipedia at all. This article could have been saved, but I don't have the time. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Lu

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Lu, recreated just four months later by another student in the same instructor's class. Notability not established with substantive independent sources: all sources are related to the subject or lack biographical depth. Most coverage found online stems from her receipt design but seems to fall under WP:BIO1E. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Netflix data analyst isn't notable. She was on a game show a decade ago [17], but it's simply coverage of a "local person on a big tv show, watch here" article. Still not much has changed since the last AfD, and whatever notability she had appears to have decreased since then, with even less sourcing found this time and not much since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that little has changed since the last AfD. The article is different enough to avoid G4 but does not present any new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 February 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Motor Speedway race results

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

Do we need another list of winners when many of these articles about races taking place there have their own list or is part of it, thus making this completely unnecessary. Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Motorsport, United States of America, and Indiana. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and redundant list of results of races at one track across many different motorsport series. Much of the information is already present in series-specific lists such as List of Indianapolis 500 winners and Brickyard_400#Past_winners. Combining this information in a massive list violates WP:NOTDB. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while there are problems, this article also includes important history and context about the very early years of the Speedway. RegalZ8790 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Reorganize: The article is important and informative, however, there is way too much redundancy. The original intent was to summarize results of races at IMS that did not have individual articles. However, that information was added later, and along with other (some non-professional events) it became bloated and too large. Recommend KEEP, but remove all sections that already have an individual article (Indianapolis 500, Brickyard 400, IROC at Indy, Freedom 100, etc., etc.) Those events can be handled with a simple Wikilink to that article. Also, trim the article by moving some sections to more appropriate existing articles (for instance, the SVRA results can be moved to the Indy Legends Charity Pro–Am race...the event with which it is/was associated) ...(all the motorcycle results can go to Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix)...brining the article back to its original intent. Doctorindy↔Talk 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doctorindy •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
doctorindy All in honesty, I was reluctant to list this in as I had thought the same with the early races though they are also listed in the AAA Championship seasons. I cannot see how the listing of support races (of post-2001) are this necessary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the changes suggested by Doctorindy. Indyguy (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a severe trim, per Doctorindy. Certainly things like lists of the notable early races should stay, but individual vintage races (by which I mean modern races for old vehicles) certainly not. A7V2 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust (KMFDM song)

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

Can't see anything in a BEFORE. Not sure how a single song without any reviews is notable Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 0 reviews or even information on this single out there. It’s not even on iTunes. KMFDM singles like this tend to be really obscure. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Holúbek

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sources I found are limited to passing mentions (1 and 2). Google searches also come up with silly namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The original article only mentioned the subject's participation in the Olympic relay. But Holúbek actually does meet WP:NSPORT, specifically WP:NATH, because he is a four-time individual national champion per the sources I added in the article. Furthermore, he is covered in this book providing SIGCOV for WP:GNG: Grexa, Ján (1996). Olympijské hnutie na Slovensku: od Atén po Atlantu. Q111. ISBN 978-80-85401-56-1.

Note that he is named in reverse order as "Holúbek Radoslav" in the book and in other sources I have found, I am not sure what Slovak naming conventions are or if a page move is appropriate. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: All countries in Europe use Western order except Hungary. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are currently zero non-database sources in the article. For that reason, the closing admin probably won't let it pass muster. The article is also severely subpar (as can be expected from a Lugnuts creation) in that it doesn't mention his two most significant competitions as an individual hurdler, the 2000 Olympic Games and the 1998 European Championships. Now, the book is interesting, but how is he covered there? 3 lines or several pages? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thanks, I tried to update the article since its nomination to add some more of his achievements. The book is 211 pages long, and there were only 71 Slovak athletes at the Olympics prior to and including 1996 when the book was published. It's interesting that Holúbek is included because our records show he didn't compete at the Olympics until 4 years later, but he was certainly a top Slovak athlete and national champion before 1996, so he is probably discussed in that context. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think an administrator would most likely close this as keep if that was the consensus, even if we can't actually access the book as NEXISTS allows for. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the so-called "discussion" might be a sentence that "athlete X beat Radoslav Holúbek at Y track meet" or "athlete X trains with Radoslav Holúbek". Not exactly significant coverage. We don't know, but can he be excpeted to have a full profile when the book is about Olympians and he was not an Olympian at the time? Being a random national champion is not that special, there are 50 of them every year across all athletic events. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was Holubek a non-starter at an Olympics or was his only selection after the book was written? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question, it's very possible. I noticed that up until late last year, He Pan (runner) was listed as a member of the 2008 Chinese Olympic team on an archived website, known to people at the time, but she ended up not starting nor appearing on the Olympic start lists. It's plausible that Holúbek was named to the team at the time of the book-writing, but may have withdrawn due to injury. @Geschichte isn't wrong that I am guessing – but to be fair, I think they would have to admit that they are guessing just as much as me about their speculated sentence of coverage. The simple fact is that until someone checks the book out from a library, all we know is that the subject's name is definitely in Google's internal scanned copy. --Habst (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request for the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep as Habst says he found SIGCOV in the book, which I am not able to access. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst is just guessing Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 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) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The presumption of WP:SIGCOV does not mean that there is any. For now, the only sources are from databases or are very brief recaps. While the book source may have coverage, we can't say that for certain. If better coverage is found, please ping me. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: May I ask, how did you find both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľubomír Pištek, your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me? Additionally, tell me, what is the purpose of having a presumption of WP:SIGCOV if it has no weight and can be simply disregarded without even searching for any relevant sources, which is essentially what your vote is implying? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thanks for your comment. I think the "presumption" of SIGCOV actually does mean that SIGCOV exists, that is what I think the definition of the word presumption means. Per WP:NEXISTS, if coverage is known to exist e.g. in a book, then I think that is valid grounds for keeping the article. Now, if the book text is retrieved but there is only a mention, then I think we would have to look for other sources, but that hasn't happened. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 February 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) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am tempted to say keep based on the presumed notability of winning at European tournaments twice, but let's shelf this until that source request mentioned above comes through, for a better picture of the landscape of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the European Cup Second League, which was a nations tournament below the Super League and First League. The Second League was a container for the lesser track nations in Europe Geschichte (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus, are there ATD possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD: Close as no consensus. --Habst (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. John

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable and fails verifiability. Based on only one source that is a primary source. Clearly fails WP:BLPSPS. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Initials are too common to be able to filter out the results. What's used now is one primary source, I don't see GNG as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Kerala, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too vague and too old to come up with any verification. The only source is an external link to the subject's own television station. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 12 February 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 MusicBrainz. ✗plicit 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBrainz Picard

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

Nominated as this had been deprodded, which got reverted who claimed there are a number of sources available; take this to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I then redirected this to Musicbrainz as its notability is rather thin, again reverted because it seems notable.

This is my rationale to nominate but reluctantly: apps and softwares of database websites are not notable on their own. It may seem "notable" to that editor but half of the 7 sources are hardly reliable sources. Of the sources, one is a talk by the creator of the website, so this is of a promotional nature. The one by PCWorld is a review and the one by CNET is a guide on using the app. Also, as with further reading, they are all guides on how to use the app. Thus this makes WP:RS rather questionable. Nothing in that article asserts why should it be notable here.

Alternatively, I suggest redirect this to MusicBrainz as a WP:ATD but I feel its notability is also pretty questionable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and Software. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PC World is fine, kind of slim. Popular Science is also a slim article. I'd consider those 1.5 sources together, not really meeting notability. The rest is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for coverage, Gsearch is all primary sourcing to their own website. Gnews is various repositories or blog type sites that feature software. I don't see enough for notability. I'd also have PROD this when reviewing it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think the MusicBrainz Picard article should be merged with the MusicBrainz article. Maybe create a separate MusicBrainz Picard subheading in the Client Software heading. Between the two articles, there should be enough reliable sources to establish notability.

GranCavallo (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as an ATD per GranCavallo; I also concur with Oaktree's analysis of the search results. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 12 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Sigma (Mega Man X)

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:Kung Fu Man, as he has made it clear he believes the article is non-notable. His stated rationale is: "Character's whole article is held up by short mentions or lists, doesn't really meet notability". As one of the article's authors, I disagree with its soft deletion, therefore I am nominating it to go through a full discussion to see if it's really non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 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 Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused why you led with pushing it to AfD, or chose to open a AfD on my behalf instead of a talk page discussion. I would have preferred that as AfD is not for cleanup. That said, ref [26] is the strongest one here. But then there's stuff like Ref [24] which is just bizarre (comparing Sigma from Overwatch to this Sigma) to use because it's not really commentary and closer to a bad Valnet article? Not to mention [22] which is also...really not saying anything.

In any event, I would've been down for a discussion if you felt I overlooked some sources instead of "you can't BLAR you must AfD!"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "bizarre" source is not a disqualifier except apparently in your opinion. It's a legitimate comparison, that may indicate some inspiration, and an example of significant coverage. And I was forced to create a procedural AfD, as you went beyond the BRD cycle by reverting twice. The alternative would have been attempting to edit war. I would have preferred to discuss after a single revert, but I had no choice in the matter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have a talk page, and as I stated on your talk page, I misunderstood the situation. It has been a trend of editors forcing BLAR's to go through AfDs instead lately. I honestly just request this be Withdrawn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose withdrawing, as I feel like it can just lead to another BLAR down the line. Its notability has been questioned, in no uncertain terms, ensuring it is notable is important to maintain the article's stability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reception section has commentary on varied aspects of the character by various secondary sources, thus fulfilling WP:WHYN/notability requirements. We have a not-so-short article with lots of non-plot information. So I see no reason for deletion, nor an advantage in a merge to a character list. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting at this stage, but I wanted to share the assessment I made of the sources listed to gather other editors' views / challenge my assessment first:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1 - 2: Sigma Voices (Mega Man) (Behind The Voice Actor)				✘ No
3: X Characters (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert	71 words	✘ No
4: Mega Man X (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert		✘ No
5: Mega Man X (Capcom)				✘ No
6: E3 2017: Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite Has Infinite Potential (Hardcore Gamer)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
7: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Trailer Unleashes DLC Fighters Black Panther and Sigma (WCCF Tech)			Excluding the press release excerpt	✘ No
8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15: Mega Man X Official Complete Works (UDON Entertainment Corp)	Capcom identified as author			✘ No
11: Inafune Denies Cataclysm Theory+Answers Your Questions! (Rockman Corner)	~ Primary source (Q&A)	~ Self-published website / blogger	70 words	✘ No
16: This Mega Man X Sigma figure is absolutely amazing (Destructoid)				✘ No
17: The Brutal Lessons Gaming Taught Me About Revolutions, Robots, And War (Kotaku)			Incidental mentions	✘ No
18: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia (DK Games)	Despite being licensed/authorized by Capcom, author is separate from Capcom		One page (150-200 words), same as 200+ other Capcom characters	✔ Yes
19: Bless the Never Ending Bug Robots That Help Me Beat Sigma in Mega-Man X (Destructoid)				✘ No
20: Best SNES Bosses Fights Ever All Time (Den of Geek)			~ More a discussion of Mega Man X's game design	~ Partial
21: How Mega Man X rewrote the player/character relationship (Eurogamer.net)				✘ No
22: Why The Mega Man X and Minecraft Crossover Is Cool But Ultimately Upseting (IGN)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
23: Playing God: The ever-changing morals of Mega Man's sci-fi allegory (The A.V. Club)			76 words (being generous)	✘ No
24: Sigma vs. Sigma: The Comparison We Had To Make (Kotaku)		~ A case of editorial discrection - From the tone of the article, this is clearly intended as humour, not a reliable analysis - Does this prove notability? Weakly unless there are other articles mentioning the similarities between Sigma (Mega Man X) and Sigma (Overwatch)		~ Partial
25: Bonus Stage Magazine. No. 19 (Bonus Stage Magazine)			~ Limited outside of plot recap	~ Partial
26: O pós-humano, cyborgs e a (re)evolução do corpo em Mega Man Maverick Hunter X [The post-human, cyborgs and the (re)evolution of the body in Mega Man Maverick Hunter X] (Literatura e Autoritarismo)				✔ Yes
27: 《洛克人 X》系列人設水野佳祐專訪以小短褲側馬尾等元素描繪原創人物「RiCO 莉可」 (GNN Gamer)	~ Q&A with a Capcom staff member		~ One answer, unclear how this corresponds to 100 words in English	? Unknown
28: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite's Story Demo Feels Like Awkward Fanfiction (Kotaku)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
29: Destructoid: Review Marvel vs Capcom Infinite (Destructoid)				✘ No
30: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Review (Den of Geek)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
31: Best Fighting Game Final Bosses Street Fighter Mortal Kombat Tekken (Den of Geek)				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I'd also note that in my opinion several of these should be considered primary sources, in particular 20, 25 and 31, which cover Sigma as part of the critic's emotional response to the subject, not as part of a broader discussion or commentary on the themes the character expresses. Shazback (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of those sources as 'primary'? I have never seen anyone define a primary source in that way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding based on the following policies, emphasis mine:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.

The last sentence references Virginia Tech, which notes that:

Opinion reviews give the article's author's opinion about the book. The review will typically include a brief summary of the book, and could include discussion on writing style, audience level and the book author's area of expertise. Opinion reviews are published in newspapers, popular magazines and specialty publications like the New York Times Book Review.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.

This is expanded upon in a footnote Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-8:

Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires [...].

There are essays discussing the articulation of these concepts, however as non-policy they can be disputed freely:

Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Fields_other_than_history:

In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. [...] Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.

Wikipedia:Frequently_misinterpreted_sourcing_policy#Editorials,_columns,_and_blogs_are_categorically_primary_sources:

Reviews (in the book, film, etc. sense; this doesn't mean academic literature reviews) are by nature subjective; a work cannot be said by WP to be "derivative", "thrilling", etc., based on them. Reviewer speculation about inspirations for, influences on, and meaning of a work are wholly subjective and unreliable, absent statements from the creators of the work, or numerous notable reviewers all concurring. For opinions on the tone, style, and characteristics of a work, we can quote/paraphrase reviewers with attribution in a due and balanced manner.

If there are specific other policies, guidelines or consensus elements I should be aware of, more than happy to take them into account. Shazback (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shazback: I think it's important to point out that reviews, with all their subjective elements, are an important and expected basis of articles on topics of fiction and should not be discounted (emphasis mine):

WP:ALLPLOT: articles about fiction [...] should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis
WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Information that may help provide the real-world discussion necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional topic includes reception, analysis, significance, development, legacy and influence, and relationships with or comparisons to other media.
Wikipedia:Notability (books): The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.
Wikipedia:Notability (video games): A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer. Published sources include any reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in agreement with Darianos. I see several good sources already used in the article. This doesn't warrant a merge. MoonJet (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the circumstances of this AFD are strange to me, a procedural nomination on behalf of someone who does not want the article deleted, an editor who AFDed to avoid "another BLAR down the line", and an unclear discussion on WP:PRIMARY. This probably should have just been a merge discussion in the first place. As for my keep vote, the source analysis above proved there is a decisive WP:THREE here with other reliable sources as well (I do think they were a bit harsh on source judging). (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: far from a delete, merge (ehh) im in agreement with the source table above. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 20 February 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 author's responses here do not inspire confidence in their willingness or ability to address the weakness in sourcing, making draftification a poor choice at this point. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY and is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Functionary doing very much what I'd expect, nothing for notability. I don't find mentions of this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, are you confused about there references? Let me know what is causing you to nominate this article for deletion and I will do my best to clear any confusion? Haniya01 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User4edits,

What parts of the article caused you to think that the article failed the Notability and that the article is Unencyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haniya01The subject (individual) is not notable as explained above by Oaktree, and the entire article is pretty much unencyclopedic, and looks like created by someone having a close connection with the subject. User4edits (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I was the one who wrote it btw, I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability?

In regards to the second point, perhaps the writing style of the paper needs to be changed to make encyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER and if you are eligible, try Wikipedia:WikiLibrary. You can begin familiarising yourself with the rules of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing all this, I am still in the process of uncovering more evidence like specific names of books, official government letters, etc. on all this. This process can take months, especially since the British Library recently experienced a big cyber attack and their whole system is down.

Do you think I should just delete all my information for now and get this Aurangzeb page back to its 2019 format (you can probably see how it was gonna be deleted back then but the decision was to keep it)? Haniya01 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am no authority here. Wikipedia is Consensus based. However, you seem to deviating the subject, what is being asked is the following

Can you explain why this person is notable as per WP:NBIO?

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting the question, here is my response:

According to academic journals - during the 1860s-1900s - it was very hard for Indian origin people to enter Indian Civil Service (aka British Indian Government), particularly higher rank positions like Extra Assistant Commissioner. In fact, there are articles, books and journals from many places on how there was a tension between British rule and the Indian people. Take this statistic, for example, between 1871 and 1878, only 5 out of 46 Indian candidates successfully passed the entrance exam for Indian Civil Service.

Based on these challenging circumstances, Aurangzeb Khan (a person of Indian origin) was able to get that higher rank position, Extra Assistant Commissioner - his rank is mentioned in this book (Gazetteer of The Jhelum District 1904. Punjab Government. pp. 103–107. ISBN 969-35-1558-7)

Also, he got that Khan Bahadur title award (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=zykYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From the articles I found there was a major project to colonize 2 million acres of land (which would be left barren) - which Aurangzeb was a part of (I am in the research process of finding more books, government letters, etc. for evidence)

I know you shared the link that newspapers are not usually valid for sources, but this newspaper called the Civil & Military Gazette was only for Government and Military news. Note that the Civil and Military Gazette are the ones who originally published the book I shared above titled Gazetteer of The Jhelum District. 1904. Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.

2. An additional/ancillary subordinate to the Commissioner (which heads a small district) is not notable. Gazette of a district looks like a WP:PSTS, nonetheless, I looked into the gazetteer you mentioned, and

the subject is no way mentioned from p103-107, but I only found an obscure running mention among other names at pg. 107.

3. I never said newspaper is not a valid source, rather it is a good one provided if it's WP:SIGCOV, what I said, and will repeat extensively

please see What Wikipedia is not, among others, it is not a family or clan archive.

4. As for Khan Bahadur title, it was a low-level local title granted to many, not a national award such as those coming within Order of the British Empire.

Finally, These do not answer the question of WP:NBIO. User4edits (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at the gazetteer I mentioned (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) On page 107, it says "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." After that there are 10 other names mentioned.
Also, listen we are both on the same page in the sense of enjoying to ensure things are done in accordance to guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, I am in the middle of the process of collecting evidence (book names, Government letters, etc.) and that the British Library experienced a major cyber attack and this has slowed down my process for months. Even though Aurangzeb Khan was just a Assistant Extra Commissioner, his impactful work caused the British Government to treat him like first/second class Military Grantee and award him accordingly. Again, I am in a middle of a process of collecting more evidence so here is a resolution. You can delete the page for now and later (in the future), I will re-write this page on Wiki and I will even invite you to come and check my page and all that evidence.

Haniya01 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for advertisement. I am unable to find subject's mentions anywhere. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Macbeejack ☎ 09:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On three observations I made, kindly don't disappoint because I don't go for delete all the time.
1. Comparing with 2019 revision and this current version, and per @User4edits: mentioned before, the user added most of the information with citations which are failing WP:N. But still, I think we must keep it.
2.The main thing we can do is cleanup the mess, yet keeping some valuable information, if passed per WP:N.
3. The user seems to be much defending that normal users does on defending. So if they are connected to the person, kindly follow the WP:COI and do the necessary measures. And if you want to expand it, kindly follow WP:GNG, WP:N and the content along with citation, which will be verified by an experienced user.
User4edits, correct me if I'm wrong. CSMention269 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major problem here is not just notability but the sources itself that incline more towards unreliability. See WP:RS. Even the verification is impossible. Links provided do not have any mention on the subject. Even a simple Google search does not give any detail about this subject's background or enough for this subject notable enough to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is as their are multiple pages at wiki but noone take responsibility of them or not even bothers to check via Turnitin them. Either you are a person from the author family who create several accounts and just keep putting obligations for a fun😊 or hired person?

Else author provided so many resources citations here. The author is not going to use this info to gain any position since it’s 100 years old history than 😇😄please be up front here👌😇🤔 Delta 2040 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Delta 2040 Welcome to Wikipedia. This is your first edit. WP:SPA or WP:SOCK ?? User4edits (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please reply with above concerns answers solution? Regards, 167.86.137.192 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, as a nice piece of personal original research. It's been pieced together from primary sources and deductions. It ought to be published somewhere; the world really needs a place for this sort of article, but it's not Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and can only have an article on him after he's been discussed by historians in secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele . Even though you are voting 'Delete', you did this in a polite and respectful manner. People like you restore my hope for Wikipedia.

I was shocked by the disrespect @User4edits showed to me earlier. This person said I was lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned on page 107 in this book (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) and calling it a 'obscure running mention among other names'.

Then, I called User4edits out by directly quoting the line where it mentions Aurangzeb Khan's name, "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." User4edits did not even apologize for what he/she said. Haniya01 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Secondary Source Found: Thanks to the explanations about what a secondary source is by @Elemimele and @DarmaniLink , I found one secondary source that mentions Aurangzeb Khan. This article was published in 2015. Is this source acceptable?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156

This secondary source is about Aurangzeb Khan's son and how he used his dad's land/house to establish a college in a rural city called Chakwal.

This article says "His father Raja Aurangzeb Khan served on top civil positions during the British rule. His father also served as first colonisation officer during the establishment of Lyalpur city...All his life, he patronised Islamia High School Chakwal which was founded by his father Raja Aurangzeb Khan...Currently the grand bungalow built by his father, Raja Auranzeb Khan, is the oldest preserved building in the city...The bungalow which has 52 rooms and a spacious lawn used to serve as the court of Raja Auranzeb Khan who was also appointed the honorary magistrate."

Earlier User4edits said that, 'Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.' Well, this secondary source article states that Aurangzeb Khan served as the first colonization officer alongside other key aspects like being a honorary Magistrate.

Lastly, here is a Wikipedia page about the list of Indian people in Indian Civil Service (List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service). This list shows Wikipedia pages about people who were also magistrates such as Brajendranath De and Maharajadhiraj Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur . Haniya01 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 NEW Secondary Sources Found (if Dawn article included - see my comment above-, then it adds up to 5 secondary sources)

Book: Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.531219/page/n49/mode/2up). On PDF page 50-51 (book page 34-35) it says, "...when Captain Popham Young was leaving the colony in 1899. The Raja referred to is Choudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, then Assistant Colonization Officer" - this ballad shows how these three established the city of Lyallpur (current day Faisalabad, the industrial city and 3rd largest city of Pakistan).
Pakistan Government Website for the 'Brief History of Faisalabad' (https://faisalabad.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx). "The first colonisation officer Aurangzeb Khan made sure that no individual in this district owned more than 25 squares (625 acres (2.53 km²)) of land. The merit or method of allotting the land was to check each individual's hand who was applying for some land, and if the hands showed that individual had worked hard in the past, only then was land given to him, which has led to a district where there aren't any big land owners, as the land has been equally distributed amongst hard working men and it is their hard work that has led to Faisalabad becoming the third richest district in Pakistan." This paragraph shows how Aurangzeb Khan's land allocation system allowed Faisalabad to become 3rd richest district in Pakistan. Also, that he is the first colonization officer (this point is also mentioned in the Dawn article).
Pakistan Government Book called 'District Gazetteers Faisalabad 2021' (https://bor9.pitb.gov.pk/system/files/Faisalabad.pdf). It repeats the same paragraph as my bullet point 2 and on page 225, it mentions 2 of Aurangzeb Khan's sons - Raja Sher Muhammad Khan and Raja Akbar Khan.
Book: Animal Labor and Colonial Welfare by James L. Hevia published in 2018 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=hglkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=IOR/L/MIL/7/6687:+report+of+the+transport+committee+1897+Government+Central+Printing+Office,+1897&source=bl&ots=7rkuc33hqS&sig=ACfU3U25pwNFyyziPqztyb19ZBokffVwSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi20PPZi8eEAxXEVqQEHcugCGMQ6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan&f=false). In Chapter 6 titled 'Indian Army Reform and the Creation of a Permanent Transport Establishment' - Aurangzeb Khan's transport and animal breeding proposal is discussed in detail and how the Stanford Transport Committee ended up picking his proposal. This is done from pages 167-170 and on page 167, its starts as, "Choudri Aurangzeb Khan, the assistant colonization officer in the Chenab canal colony..."
Dawn article: https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156 - please see my comment above

Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 MORE Sources Found (this is a total of 8 now - please see list above)

Book: Life in Transition by Prof. Jasbir S. Juggi published in 2022 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-BBlEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=aurangzeb+khan+lyallpur&ots=MICsOnsCzM&sig=Z5GjYm8zw6N_JIz0yucBwMsQW7o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan%20&f=false). On page 13 it says, “My grandfather was in the employ of Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, one of the descendants of Chaudhry Subhan Kuli Khan, and later on his son Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan as administrator of their estates in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad, Pakistan) area of British Punjab around 1900…The father of Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan, Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, built a colonial bungalow on the flatlands, facing the Kot, south of old Chakwal city in 1873. The house is still used as a family home of his descendants and remains the oldest building in the area and seat of the Chaudhry’s of Chakwal, sometimes referred to as Chaudhrials.”. Raja Sarfraz Khan, also known as Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, is mentioned in the Dawn article I shared in my comments above. That Dawn article also mentions how the bungalow is the oldest building in Chakwal and that this was built in 1873.
Book: A Journey to Disillusionment by Sherbaz Khan Mazari published in 2000 by Oxford University Press (https://www.amazon.com/Journey-Disillusionment-Sherbaz-Khan-Mazari/dp/0195790766). I am referring to the 2nd edition - please see this link (https://sanipanhwar.com/A%20Journey%20to%20Disillusionment%20-%20Sherbaz%20Khan%20Mazari.pdf). On PDF page 20 (book page 17), it says, " During the minority of my brothers and I, Rahimyar Khan managed the tribal affairs in our stead. Our property was placed under the management of Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, a Punjab civil service officer, who reported directly to the District Deputy Commissioner, who was our official guardian.". In the Wikipedia Aurangzeb Khan article, look under Section Early Career and Education, Sub-Section Social Welfare. There I mention how Aurangzeb Khan looked after an estate with the Deputy Commissioner.
Journal/Newspaper: The The Khalsa Advocate (September 21, 1907) -Source: South Asia Open Archives (https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.35194545?seq=1). On page 2, 2nd column (in the 2nd paragraph), it says, "...Raja Aurangzeb of Chakwal is a retired Government officer (probably an E. A. C) who wields enormous influence in the ilaqa. Three of his relatives are said to have been amoung the incendiaries. There is little wonder therefore that Sheikh Fazal Shah, the Inspector deputed to make inquires, postponed the statements of the aggrieved Sikhs, after they were half taken down until the arrival of Raja Aurangzeb who was away from Chakwal."

Haniya01 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URLs Found for Some Old Sources

The references I used when I published the article during Jan. 2024 did not have a URL because I accessed them from the British Library. Even though Wikipedia's Notability clearly states, "Sources do not have to be available online ", some editors did not understand this.

Today, I found a database for The Civil & Military Gazette where the URL shows that Aurangzeb Khan's name is mentioned.

This is what I found so far:

28 August, 1897 - Page 7 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221897%22&mode=PHRASE)
24 June, 1899 - Page 8 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221899%22&mode=PHRASE)
13 March 1900 - Page 3 - Under 'Out-Station Items' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
8 June 1900 - Page 5 - Under 'Civil' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 July 1900 - Page 9 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
31 January 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
18 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
23 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)

Haniya01 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 ADDITIONAL Sources Found (4 Books, 6 Gov. Reports and UK House of Commons doc.)

If you look at my comments above and add everything up, then this is a total of 19 new sources.

Book: 'The Pakistan Gazetteer Volume 4' published during Year 2000 by Cosmo Publications (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YwEwAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aurangzeb+khan) - Its the same information as the Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904.
Book: 'Who's who in India, Containing Lives and Portraits of Ruling Chiefs, Notables, Titled Personages, and Other Eminent Indians' published in 1911 by Newul Kishore Press (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YbssAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him.
Book: 'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʻOmān, and Central Arabia: Historical. 4 v' published in 1970 by author John Gordon Lorimor and publisher Gregg (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=NL0sAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You also need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him in this book.
Book: 'History of Services of Gazetted Officers Employed in the Punjab' published during 1897 by Civil & Military Gazette (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/History_of_Services_of_Gazetted_Officers/RDlFAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is a open access book where on page 285 there is a table for Aurangzeb Khan. It says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudhri, Khan Bahadur, Rajput. Home of family: Jhelum District - Joined the Service, 5th Jan. 1869. Born, 1849...." Then, the table gives exact dates of when he got what position. This is a big discovery and I will update the wiki page to match this timeline.
UK House of Commons Papers: 'Parliamentary Papers: 1850-1908 Volume 76 Part 2' published by Great Britain Parliament House of Commons during 1908. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Parliamentary_Papers/679DAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is open access where on pages 2 and 75-79, Aurangzeb's Interview can be seen. This is the same interview that I already mention in the Wikipedia article about Aurangzeb Khan.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' by Punjab Department of Revenue and Administration on 1893. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/Ipg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aurangzeb+khan&pg=RA2-PR27&printsec=frontcover) This is a open access document. On pages xxvii, there is mention how during year 1892-93 they were colonizing around 602, 659 acres of land for Chenab Colony. Aurangzeb's name is mentioned for survey, demarcation and colonization. On page xxix, it mentions how Munshi Aurangzeb Khan was appointed as 2nd class Magistrate on 1st July, 1892 and during that year, he gave decisions for 41 cases. He also toured 197 officers that year.
Gov. Report: 'Quarterly Civil List of the Punjab' published during 1898 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Quarterly_Civil_List_for_the_Punjab/CeUSAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0). This is open access document. On PDF page 58 (report page 61), Aurangzeb Khan's name is in the Extra Assistant Commissioner, 7th Grade list where his year of birth, 1849, is mentioned and that he is a, "Magte., 2nd class, Asst. Colonization Officer, Chenab Canal"
Gov. Report: 'Report on the Working of Hospitals and Dispensaries' published in 1900 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Working_of_Hospitals_and_D/OlE_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page 9, it shows, "Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, late Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chakwal" gave Rs. 160 for hospital funding
Gov. Report: 'Documents on Punjab: Political Movements (1907-1920)' published by Anmol Publication during 1994. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Documents_on_Punjab_Political_movements/E2huAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=aurangzeb%20khan%20chakwal) On page 154, under Jhelum for bullet point 4. When searching the document, type 'Aurangzeb' only.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1897. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/aJg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page xix, it says, "...I have more to express my indebtedness to Chaudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, Assistant Colonization Officer, for a year's of excellent work"
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1891. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/K5Q-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1) On pages 38-39 it says, "Very considerable attention has been paid to irrigation during the past year, the greatest activity having been shown as usual in the Pasrur tehsil. The tahsildar, Aurangzeb Khan, has continued his efforts to restore old embankments and erect new ones where necessary. The great Satrah band has been strengthened and improved, and a number of new embankments have been made in the greater kalar plain to the south-west of the tehsil. The results of this energy are very apparent in the area and crop returns… The work done by Aurangzeb Khan is more especially deserving of praise."

Haniya01 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on my previous comments, you see that 19 new sources have been recently discovered. Naturally, the Wikipedia page for Aurangzeb Khan needs a update/edit so these new sources are incorporated. I have started this process. Today I re-wrote the beginning of the article. I hope that in the next few days, I gradually update each section (for example, Background, Early Career and Education, etc.). I will respond to this comment when I am done with this process and/or if I have any question about this process. Haniya01 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Give the author a chance to make it notable, and for the article to be cleaned up. Deleting it won't free up space, so there's little reason not to. This article is extremely well written and frankly it just needs some secondary sources to establish notability. It should have to go through AfC however before returning to mainspace, with a special note that there must be secondary sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DarmaniLink. I am the author of this page.

Even if this page becomes a draft, @User4edits will not allow it to be published.

I am saying this based on 2 things User4edits has done:

During Jan. 2024, I created another page about Jehan Khan (Aurangzeb Khan's father) and submitted it for publication; HOWEVER, User4edits came in and stopped it from being published and accused me for lying and saying that Jehan Khan is not a Raja - I said Jehan Khan was known as either Raja Jehan Khan or Choudri Jehan Khan.
Please look at my response to Elemimele's comment where I describe another example of when User4edits accused me for lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned in a published book.

Haniya01 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these 2 points, I do not trust User4edits. If this page about Aurangzeb Khan becomes a draft, is it possible for me to ask either you @DarmaniLink and/or @Elemimele to check the draft and see if its good for publication? Haniya01 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a bit more civil towards user4edits, but, yeah, sure, I'll check it. But just so you know, I'll actually check it. :) If it needs more secondary sources, or the sources aren't clear enough, I'll tell you. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Haniya01 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also go through AFC after and get a far better opinion as well as instructions than I could give. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to draftification and would also recommend AfC; it's slow, but it's a good way to get help and an independent evaluation. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire Primary Care Trust

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Just 2 gnews hits. Article seems refbombed for last statement with 8 sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Mars

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

Reception/Legacy sources that was cited were trivial and wasn't talking about the character like the The New York Times, its all about the television show. WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show, sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glamour, ScreenRant, Bustle, The Atlantic, EW. There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP, which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN, so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show: Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:45, 4 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. No consensus to delete after multiple relistings and discussions. Slightly lean towards keep due to the changes made, but no clear consensus is established. Closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zau de Câmpie gas field

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

I searched for any news, books or other info to establish the notability of this gas field. Finding none, I proposed it for deletion. This was objected to and claims of adding important info were made. I redirected it to a relevant table, and it was undone. Again with claims of adding important information. I then tagged it for lacking significant coverage, that tag was removed no reason given. The information in the article now is derived from 6 sources. Here's a summary of those: In the first reference it is mentioned once in passing and is not the subject of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. In the second reference, it's mentioned twice in passing and is not the subject of the article. In the third reference it is mentioned once in passing, not as the subject. I can't translate the fourth reference but it is clearly from 1922 and is presented in the article as a reliable source for data in 2009 and 2010. The fifth reference is just a data sheet from a financial report or something. The sixth reference mentions it in passing, but it is not the subject of the source. None of these sources nor any of the info in the WP article say anything at all about this field being important in any way. So they don't establish significance, Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance, and gas fields are not covered very well by any policy. WP:GEO wants clear evidence of importance. I assert that it is a non notable run of the mill gas field with outdated info and should be deleted not redirected. Thus I submit it to AFD. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article pertains to one of the oldest gas fields in Europe (discovered in 1914, continuously exploited since 1920), with a well-documented history, both in the academic press (e.g., Annals of the University of Oradea, Romanian Review of Regional Studies), news organizations articles (e.g., RFE/RL, MSNews), and various government and industry press releases, for a total of 10 references so far. This is not a "run of the mill" gas field; rather, it is one of the very few oil fields in Europe more than 100 years old (that's why it has references going back to 1922) and still in operation, at the center of an area that produces some 3/4 of Romania's natural gas output (itself 3rd in Europe after Holland and UK). The importance of the field to the economy of Romania is highlighted in a (restricted) CIA report from 1948 (made public in 2011), which mentions it specifically, devoting a whole paragraph to the Zau de Câmpie gas field. Furthermore, it is not at all the case that the information contained in the article is "outdated": there are several references from 2018–2022, some of them referring to current output, means of gas extraction or compression (62 drilling rigs in operation, new compressor), and fairly current (2017) estimates of reserves and prospects for further production extended up to 2029. Turgidson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I realized I misspoke, by omitting details around my outdated comment. So I will explain. The article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, and things like what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article, and these things change from one year to the next so they would be out of date unless someone is constantly updating that. There are literally hundred of other articles about gas fields, and even more about oil fields, that are just like this. Who is going to keep all these trivial numbers updated annually? Furthermore the people who would want this info is not going to come to Wikipedia for. It's out place, but the problem is if you get rid of it there is no article.

- Comment It's true there are now ~~ten~~ 11 references, and some of them actually mention this place. None of them state this is an important gas field. At least one of the sources points out that being and old gas field is a bad thing. None of the provided references are significant coverage. I've thoroughly looked and I know there isn't any. Here's a breakdown of the claimed important coverage:
  - The 11th reference is just a trade journal reporting on agreements being renewed and only mentions this field in passing.
  - The 10th is just basic statistics probably from a financial report.
  - The ninth reference is dated 1922, and is used as a source for info from 2009-2010. I can't translate it.
  - The eighth reference mentions this gas field in passing as part of a larger important area. But doesn't state it is of any special value.
  - The seventh, is the cia report, It's the only source in this batch that even uses the word 'Important'. But it's not referring to this gas field, but a well in the field. The report is merely summarizing the gas resources in Romania and doesn't single this one out as particularly important.
  - The fifth just talks about drilling somewhere, it was a routine church announcement.
  - The Sixth, doesn't mention this gas field, and is an article that states that gas resources in Romania are now headed toward depletion due to the long period of exploitation.
  - The fourth, lists it as a gas field but has nothing else to say.
  - The third article doesn't mention it.
  - The second article just states what gas compressor it uses.
  - The first reference mentions it in passing once, in a discussion about the first gas pipline.
- There's nothing here to establish this as a stand alone article.

Comment It's probably worth considering that the Romanian language Wikipedia has this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99, but it's about the village in the area the gas field is named for. It also has this article about the larger region containing the gas field https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99. Neither of these mention the gas field. There is also this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazele_naturale_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia on natural gas in Romania. That article mentions several important gas fields in Romania. This one is not on that list. Furthermore, despite the stated importance of those gas fields there are no articles about them to be found on the Romanian Wikipedia. So you can rely on the fact that even Romanians don't care about this one. And, they clearly don't want articles about gas fields. If this is such great gas field, how come nobody on the Romanian Wikipedia thought to write about it? Maybe I should change my vote to "move it to the Romanian Wikipedia"? Since they need an article on this very important gas field. Then we'll see how fast they delete it.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disagree with nomination as the article has a clear claim of importance. Probably any gas field is important, but this one more so since it has been going over 100 years. I will not have comment on notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the provided sources, passes WP:GNG, and i'd say "one of the oldest gas fields in Europe" is a credible claim of significance. Wheather sources are from last week or 200 years old dosen't really matter. Sources don't explicitly have to highlight the subject as being especially "important" to establish notability.
"article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article." Those would be first things to talk about in an article about oil/gas fields?
Wheather articles about the topic exist or dosen't exist in other projects dosen't matter for notability in the English WP. --TheImaCow (talk)
The first red flag was that the article spent more words on a general history of gas production in Romania as a whole and didn't even get to the specific subject until over halfway through the body. The second red flag comes from checking out the sources. It turns out that sources that talk about the "CENTRU region" or the Transylvanian Basin gas production as a whole, and that include this subject as one item in a list at one point in the source, have had all of the other locations stripped out. For examples:
- The Tofan source, supporting the introduction, actually says "Transilvaniei Plain" and this subject is in a list "Zau de Câmpie, Șincai and Delenii" and not specifically singled out.
- The Crețu source, supporting where the article body actually gets around to this subject, talks about the "CENTRU region" and on the page supporting the content this subject is merely one in a list "Nades, Zaul de Campie, Bogata, Saros, Singiorgiu de Campie, Seleus, ZăuŞăulia, Mădăraş, Sărmăşel, Cetatea de Balta, Tauni, Porumbenii Mari, Avramesti, Mugeni, etc." Yes, etc. even!
- The MS News source doesn't even narrow down to this subject in its list. "Păingeni, Saușa, Zau de Câmpie – Saulia și, Săbed" it says. So it's not Zau de Câmpie but Zau de Câmpie–Saulia.
- It turns out that the Romanian government's Annex A (of what document, the source citation doesn't say) says Zau de Câmpie–Saulia too. It's even in the title in the citation. So this article has even narrowed the few sources that seem on-point to a narrower subject. And it's not apparent, since this is Annex A in its own PDF file in the uploads section of a Wordpress site, who the author of Annex A is.
It's not that this is run-of-the-mill. Everything is run-of-the-mill and dull to somebody. It's that the world's knowledge of the entire Transylvanian Basin's gas production has been lopsidedly presented under the subject of just one of the things that most of the sources (in the article, and the ones that I could find after some looking around for geological reports and the like) just include in laundry lists of places where gas wells are, and don't directly discuss in depth as a specific standalone topic. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the run of the mill, thing, thanks for providing another take on why this needs to go away. Much better than my explanation. James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article now mentions a PhD thesis from 1929 (by geologist Augustin Vancea [ro], a future corresponding member of the Romanian Academy), which specifically mentions in the title "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie (Moinești)", Moinești being an alternate name for the village, briefly adopted after 1926, but then abandoned. The work is quoted in a 2010 PhD thesis from Babeș-Bolyai University by Liana Spulber, where additional context can be found. Finally, as briefly mentioned in a previous comment of mine, the Zau de Câmpie gas field is specifically mentioned as being important to the Romanian economy, in a full, standalone paragraph from a 1948 CIA report, itself based on an August 15, 1948 article in the official PCR publication, Scînteia (I tried to dig out the original Scînteia piece, but it's behind a paywall). Turgidson (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you need to actually read the policies on significant coverage, because you don't seem to understand that these sources are not significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Improvments were made to the article since AFD started. I've reviewed them and have new analysis. The article is no longer about the gas field. In order to expand the article without having significant coverage, the editor has incorporated a bunch material about Romanian gas production and gas production around the world. Only ~half of the sources, and text in this article is actually about the gas field. This makes the article longer, but not better. In checking all the sources, none of them are written about this gas field, many mention it in lists, tables and in passing. But, they are all written about another subject. None of those passing mentions single out this gas field as special. WP:Sigcov/Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance is one of the plainest policies that WP has, and according to that, even this article is no longer significant coverage of the topic. Most every mention of the name of this gas field in this wiki article are passing mentions. I will leave you with examples. Here is an example of a notable gas field, Darvaza_gas_crater. Those who want to see what significant coverage of a gas field looks like may try this: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16766862/perla-gas-field-offshore-venezuela-enters-production. Note that the name of the field is in the title of the source. Now as an exercise try finding the name of this field in the title of anything.James.folsom (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that no source mentions the subject of the article in the title, do you mean that in a literal sense (as in the mathematical concept of Empty set), or in some kind of figurative sense, or perhaps statistical sense? As clearly mentioned in the article (and reiterated in previous comments on this page), there was a whole thesis written by a geologist (later academician), whose title contains the words "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie" (see also GoogleScholar and click on Cite). Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I realized I would be amenable to moving this to a title more befitting this article, now that it is rewritten about another topic. Maybe "history of Transylvania natural gas" or some such.James.folsom (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. Agree with James.folsom eval. Existence does not mean notability. // Timothy :: talk 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the article has shifted its topic since the nomination, it would be useful to get more feedback about moving it to a more fitting title, such as "Natural gas in Transylvania".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information that was added here should have been added to other articles instead of here. The proper thing now might be to merge it to places it belongs, for example Transylvanian_Plateau.James.folsom (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only goal of the keep voters is just to never delete anything, they have no intention of improving the article. I reassert my deletion stance. And, since someone recently got it through my head what primary and secondary sources are, I add that this subject has no secondary sourcing required by WP:GNG.James.folsom (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true - Turgidson did not only !vote keep, but made large improvements to the article. Article before the first PROD and now.

I reassert my "Keep". Also, I don't see how this article has "shifted its topic". Does adding 2 paragraphs about why this field is important really change the topic? It is clearly still about that particular field. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "content is king" for me. I don't want to lose reliably sourced content. I'm agnostic as to whether that material is in a standalone article (that meets notability requirements), a list or part of some other article. If anything, Wikipedia needs fewer, longer standalone articles to maintain -- as long as we keep the same content.

Note that reliable sources include primary sources, subject to the 6 requirements laid out in WP:PRIMARY, part of our foundational No Original Research policy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 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 Air source heat pump. selectively, as noted. Language is an issue for the sourcing and discussion thereof. Consensus isn't going to emerge here to delete, and the only person arguing for retention is the article's creator. Star Mississippi 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute

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

This might have been an exceptional product when the article was created but now I suspect it is just one among many. So I think it should be merged to air source heat pump Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Japan. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a weird one, it's largely sourced to technical documentation, some primary, some not. It's well-sourced, but I'm not sure the sources are enough of a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have now bolded that i propose merge not delete Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EcoCute is trade name, but widely used by Japanese manufacture and marketing.

As referred in external link, millions of unit installed in Japan and may be marketed to other area. EcoCute is a type of heat pump, and some Japanese mfg. apply EcoCute technologies to Air to Water (A2W) pump for Europe market. I agree EcoCute to be marge into heat pump as type of one tech. method. Namazu-tron (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namazu-tron: Thanks - as far as I understand it EcoCute is only air source not ground source or water source. If I understood right then it might be better to merge into air source heat pump rather than heat pump I suppose. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is air source heat pump. Pls pay attention in marge process, not to neglect advantage of EcoCute description and feature.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute is already installed millions of units in Japan, and probably marketed in other area based on technical advantage.

It is state in article EcoCute (Japanese: エコキュート, Hepburn: ekokyūto) is an energy-efficient electric heat pump in head description.

Article “Heat Pump” does not refer EcoCute in its text, and Ecocute article simply refer in See also section.

It means Article EcoCute is well satisfy to “not delete” and eligible to be exist as an article alone, and user may understand two article EcoCute and Hear pump each other.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely technical and legal documentation, none of which provides notability. I can't find sources for this industrial equipment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Namazu-tron: @Oaktree b: As one of you wants to keep and the other delete could you both compromise and let me merge this as I originally proposed? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I added external link Heat-pump-increased-production-of-japanese-version-ecocute in Europe market recently 2023. Ecocute is tradename but widely used Japanese manufacture might be trade name right holder for deployment not only in Japan and aiming in Europe as well. So far, only 3 users participating this marge/delete discussion. My first edit as new article was 23:58, 7月 10, 2008. I see your write up histories for many other articles. Let’s wait for other uses comment and no need to be rushed.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly merge, fine, this isn't notable enough to have an entire section in that article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is no delete, nor Wikipedia:Merging and nor Wikipedia:Redirect.

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding.

Now, The fact today is that millions of EcoCute unit used in houses and industries in Japan, and globally most people facing the Periodization of Climate variability and change and Climate change. Energy and cost cut/effective hot water making is demanded in global scale for CO₂ reduction worldwide market in Europe/north & south America, South Asia, Oceania. EcoCute is trademark of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPC) does not produce EcoCute.

Every power companies include KEPC, house maker/big and small house contractor recommend EcoCute to user on fair market competition. KEPC hold trademark, and my guess is, trademark EcoCute is to permit naming as Ecocute to use every 20-30 manufactures, may be coming year into Europe and/or America martket opening when minimum requirement satisfied, and KEPC will allow variety of EcoCute Specification (technical standard) depend on market and producer. With trademark registered, nobody can make and sell cute/charming toy with naming of EcoCute, for example, it prevent EcoCute be confused and disturbed in market where CO₂ emission decrease under people’s wish.

I believe that, KEPC is willing to diffusion (business) of EcoCute not only in Japan, globally worldwide in hope of cut CO₂ emission reduction. Naming of EcoCute is only applicable for hot water making and supply system Air source heat pump with Refrigerant by CO₂ as commercialize first country under corporation with Norwegian/German physicist, as described in Etymology and other section, and not applicable no supplying hot water machine such as air conditioner nor refrigeration system.

I hope users, herein discussion, to improve context of article EcoCute with big hope as contributing editor rather than delete/marge.

I mean to keep/improve article EcoCute is really contribution not only Wikipedia but also global problem. EcoCute placed in Japanese market by Corona Corporation (コロナ) in May 2001 and more than 20 years passed. Technologies for EcoCute seems already well matured/completed, it seems, and not enough sources even in Japanese, as far as I look for web site, most available sources are for marketing purpose. I will improve article EcoCute as well as I can, my an excuse is not pay attention even on Talk page after first edit in/around in 2008, my contribution on other article both English and Japanese edition, but not so frequent. Thank you.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments and analysis on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 13 February 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto dialer

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Article has had lack of citation warnings on it since 2011 yet remains practically unsourced. Only section of article that is sourced relates to telemarketing regulations. Given that there exists a well-sourced article on telemarketing that makes reference to automatic dialing, seek to get agreement to redirect to that article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rambling Rambler: You removed a section which was referenced to "Popular Mechanics" which is massively popular and one of the industry standards for those types of mags. I rememeber reading it, in the 1980's and 1990's. It seems to be a valid secondary source. The subject seems to notable and I think with a bit of work it could be a good article. scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've removed it twice now, and it was one of the things that inspired my objection to the BLAR. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I removed it, as explained in the change notes, because the source was only used to support the following claim:

"A semi-automatic dialer is a human-controlled dialer. All actions, such as dialing, playing the audio messages, recording, are initiated by a human, normally by the press of a key. It is a productivity tool for telemarketing agents. The first semi-automatic dialer was offered on the commercial market in 1942. It was manually operated and came in two models; one that stored 12 numbers and a second which could store up to 52 numbers."
- However if you read the source itself it only actually supports the lines I've put in bold in the above quote. It doesn't support the claim it was the first offered on the market, nor does it support the definition of a "semi-automatic dialer". Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rambling Rambler, that's not good practice. What you could have done is put a cn-tag after the unverified bit, for instance. However, that article is talking about an auto-dialer of the mechanical kind, which isn't what the article is about, allegedly. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies if it was an article that was otherwise citation heavy and showed signs of active improvement I'd probably have done so. Here however it's an article with warnings going back a decade regarding a lack of verifiability, so when a quick google only shows marketing companies wanting to sell you stuff and seem to have just taken their content straight from this article ("In those days, auto dialers were semi-automatic dialers, and they were limited to storing between 12 and 52 numbers. Employees had to press a key to initiate the features") I thought best to go on the side of caution by removing the section given it couldn't support the notable information of the subsection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait, Rambling Rambler--so you were trying to improve an underreferenced article by removing the one secondary source it had? Drmies (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies, no, as previously said I was removing a source that was being used to back up claims the source doesn't corroborate. Nowhere does the source state that it's a "semi-automatic dialer" (a term and definition that is uncited itself) nor that, whatever the device in popular mechanics could be defined as, it's the first one on the market.
        
        In fact it's hard to consider the device in question an "automatic dialer" as described by the article lede; that being an electronic device or program that automatically dials a large amount of telephone numbers and either plays a pre-recorded message or connects to a human callhandler.
        
        Instead the device in the popular mechanics source is anything but that. In fact its implementation is really akin to an early version of the contact list on mobile phones, where the phone number is saved against another identifier (usually a name) and selecting that identifier is enough for the phone to dial the specific number associated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the one who objected to the BLAR. I understand that the article is in terrible shape. But AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any actual argument for deletion besides that. It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable, and not particularly urgent or sensitive that we needed an instant fix. It's not a concept I particularly edit or care about, merely a random move I stumbled upon and didn't agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I agree totally. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable"

It wasn't "lazy" at all. I read through the actually cited content in the autodialer article, noted the bottom contained a "see also" for the telemarketing article, and noticed that the article's content is effectively duplicated in that second article. Telemarketing details both the concept of automatic dialing and regulations on its use, both of the leftover thrusts of the auto dialer article after removing the unsourced content. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then replace "lazy" with "not the best approach to the situation". Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a perfect solution but so far no one else has offered up any others to the situation other than just leaving it with zero applicable citations beyond duplicating content on the article I redirected it too.

And frankly I find it most irritating when you've stated it's "not a concept I particularly edit or care about" and only seem to want to almost insultingly criticise what I did without offering any solutions yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of that comment was simply to show I have no biases for or against auto dialers. I primarily work in music and video games, areas where there are constantly "fanboys/fangirls" trying to protect what they like or erase what they don't. "Swifties", "K-pop Stans", people all caught up in the "console wars", etc etc. I was merely saying I have no bias of that sort. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robocall: and do the same with the the alternate spelling, Autodialer. The Telemarketing article is well written and sourced, but it covers much more than just the topic of the equipment used to generate the telephone calls, a subject that is clearly notable enough for a standalone article such as we have with Robocall and with Dialer. Even redirecting to Dialer would be preferable to redirecting to Telemarketing. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative redirection I would also be fine with either. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears to have been greatly improved since nom. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:04, 10 February 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) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many thanks to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for vastly improving the article (WP:HEY). It now clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk)
Keep -- nice rewrite. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's rewrite. didn't know that user template existed until now DrowssapSMM 22:29, 13 February 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. Both sides raise valid arguments, but some of those on the minority Delete side seem like issues that can be fixed editorially, without the need to blow it up and start afresh. Notability of the concept, rather than its name, seems adequately supported by those on the Keep side. Discussion about renaming can proceed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo cult programming

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

This appears to be a dictionary definition, padded out with content on other subjects. The only source cited actually discussing the article topic is a hacker dictionary. The 'origin' section at minimum borders on WP:OR, and is mostly off-topic, while the 'Cargo cult software engineering' section starts with an explicit statement to the effect that it is off-topic. An online search for the article topic itself fails to locate the significant coverage in WP:RS necessary to establish notability: instead, we find a few blog entries and similar, along with instances of the phrase being used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-known concept in software engineering. The Hacker's Dictionary is a reliable source for computing-related subjects, as is the book by Steve McConnell that is cited. Ample other sources are available, for example [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. It has received scholarly study as well: [23], [24], [25]. Easily meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite is completely and utterly wrong about the actual 'cargo cults' this supposed ritualised programming practice is being compared to (I could go into great detail, but just as a teaser, I'll note that documented 'cults' pre-date the aeroplane, never mind WW2, and that in as much as 'cargo' ever played a part, it was a relatively small part of what were actually complex indigenous political/religious reactions to the rapid social change and growing economic/political inequalities of colonialism. The anthropological literature on this phenomenon is extensive, and precisely none of it supports this reductionist 'stupid primitives' narrative). If that is a 'reliable source', what would an unreliable one look like? Same for the second. And so on. Most of the sources you link do little more than assert that 'cargo cult programming exists', and those that do define it through analogy based on a wrong-headed and frankly offensive counterfactual popular-culture trivialisation of movements and events documented within anthropology. A dictionary definition at best, repeated ad nauseum. If programmers think that using the term 'cargo cult' and then telling a fairy tale constitutes an actual definition of anything, that's their choice. I see no reason for Wikipedia to present their ritual incantations as based on fact... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jfire's sources. Additionally, the article is (or at least should be?) about a concept, not the specific words "cargo cult programming" and "cargo cult software engineering", so I find the notion that "cargo-cult software engineering" is off-topic incorrect. It's clearly the same topic. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: nom seems to have an agenda to WP:RGW. And while I feel for their position on the misappropriation of the term "cargo cult" to describe this concept in computer science / software engineering, this is the WP:COMMONNAME of this concept, and "Ritualistic incorporation of commonly used patterns that serve no purpose in programming" would not be a title useful to readers. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the suggestion that the scope of WP:RGW should include noting that an article has been disseminating factually-incorrect content based on sources that rely on pop-cult just-so stories to perpetuate an offensive stereotype for over twenty years somewhat disheartening. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Origin section as it stood was rewritten precisely to address the cultural misapprehensions that Andy is so keen to have addressed. It's quite the irony to insist that people refer to research that has refined the understanding of CCs, then declare it original research and off-topic when it is represented in the article! 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight my initial approach, aimed at rectifying the appalling misrepresentations of 'cargo cults' as it stood in the article, might not have been the most appropriate. If I'd taken more note of the paucity and inadequacy of sources being cited, rather than the utterly wrong-headed 'stupid brown people' narrative I saw there, I'd probably have nominated the article for deletion sooner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, regardless of political arguments within the academic field of cultural anthropology were taking place in the 1990s-2000s (?), this does seem like a term used by computer programmers, and the sources support this. I do not really see what's wrong with the article. jp×g 🗯️ 02:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology has been discussing and debating 'cargo cults' (a term going out of favour) since the 1950's, if not earlier. The debate is ongoing. As for 'terms', they generally belong in dictionaries, unless subject to considerably more reliably-sourced analysis. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage of subject matter in multiple reliable sources. Not sources 'using' the term, but sources 'discussing' it in depth. All I'm seeing are sources which either take it as read everyone knows what they are referring to, or defining it through hand-waving analogy with popular-culture pseudoanthropology. The sources seem to be reliably vague, reliably useless, and/or reliably wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cargo cult since the article does appear to have the problems previously raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big ball of mud. In this case there is the added wrinkle that "cargo cult" is a broadly applied metaphor and its metaphorical usage in various contexts is offered to support the notability of the specific term in the Jargon File, which was based on one student's usage at the University of Iowa in the early 1990s. The cargo cult article should eventually have a short section on the term's metaphorical use outside and in Melanesia that can serve as a more specific redirect target. 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect proposed would be improper, since the cargo cult article doesn't discuss cargo cult programming, and nor should it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be noted in passing within a section on the metaphor, cited to Lindstrom and Jarvis. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do either Lindstrom or Jarvis discuss 'cargo cult programming'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis describes it as an example of the metaphor, and Lindstrom mentions "cargo cult computer code" for the same purpose. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very useful and well known concept in the field of programming. פרה (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against deletion, but it would be useful to get more views about a possible merge or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analogy with the discussion at TalL:Cargo cult science. The cargo cult part is misused and the whole article is working as a definition. This is not the Wiktionary.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not merely a dictionary definition, but it is a term for a specific anti-pattern that is found in computer programming. Coverage of this as an anti-pattern (rather than as a mere term) can be found on Page 381 of this book, on page 38 of this book, in this paper, and in others. There are even some full-length reflections by experts in the field about this sort of anti-pattern. The application of the "cargo cult" metaphor to programming dates back to at least 1983, and it remains a fairly standard pitfall in the programming world; I'm even able to find containerization-related cargo cult programming papers being published. And the security implications of cargo cult programming is described both in this paper and this one. This isn't the wiktionary, but I do think that this sort of thing goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. That the metaphor might be a misnomer, as the nominator suggests, is totally irrelevant to notability of the anti-pattern itself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, it's an important concept. Richard Feynman coined the term "Cargo Cult Science" and this is the software engineering equivalent. Feynman's original use is here:

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

This article gives some modern examples of the problem:

https://medium.com/the-engineering-manager-guide/cargo-cult-programming-is-killing-the-sri-lankan-software-industry-e5e9fc9a3ff9

Here are more examples with the lessons to learn:

https://blog.ndepend.com/cargo-cult-programming/ Ainsinga (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are problems with the current article, but it should be possible to write a better one. This is a commonly-addressed topic in computing courses and textbooks. The standard Google and database searches may not turn up material buried in lectures, books, conferences, and so on. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:52, 6 February 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archelaus II of Macedon

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

There does not seem to be any modern evidence that Archelaus II existed. The only reference is to a work by Sir Walter Raleigh!! The article's facts and dates clash or are inconsistent with articles that rely on more reliable sources. Chewings72 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sixteen-year hoax. Nice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not mentioned at List of kings of Macedonia, which does seems to indicate this is likely a hoax. Curbon7 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure which Wiki policy this article exactly violates, but there never was an Archelaus II. This name does not appear on any list of Macedonian kings from any modern scholarly source (see below). The article is the result of a misunderstanding created by the conflicting extant sources about this period in Macedonian history (400/399–369 BC).

To clarify, the succession order given by modern sources is generally Perdiccas II -> Archelaus (I) -> Orestes -> Aeropus II -> Amyntas II -> Pausanias -> Amyntas III. Eusebius and Synkellos, writing in Late antiquity/early medieval period, record Orestes’ successor as "Archelaus" (our Archelaus II). However, Diodorus, as well as a few other sources, call Orestes' successor "Aeropos" (March pp. 275-276). What’s likely going on here is that Aeropos adopted the name "Archelaus" when he became king (March p. 280). Alternatively, the "Archelaus" could be a mistake in the Eusebian and Synkellan sources (King p.65, Hammond 1979 p.168). In either case, there is no Archelaus II.

This is all pretty complicated, so anyone interested in this niche subject should read Duane A. March's journal article The Kings of Makedon: 399-369 B.C.

Kings of Macedonia
Source	Archelaus II
Eder, Walter; Renger, Johannes, eds. (2006). Chronologies of the Ancient World: Names, Dates, and Dynasties. Boston: Brill. pp. 188–190.	X
Morby, John (1989). Dynasties of the World: A Chronological and Genealogical Handbook. Oxford University Press. pp. 29–30.	X
Roisman, Joseph (2010)."Classical Macedonia to Perdiccas III". In Roisman, Joseph; Worthington, Ian (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 158.	X
Errington, R. Malcolm (1990). A History of Macedonia. University of California Press. pp. 251–253.	X
Hammond, N.G.L. (1979). A History of Macedonia Volume II: 550-336 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 167–169.	X
Strootman, Rolf (2014). Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East After the Achaemenids, c. 330 to 30 BCE Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. xiv–xv.	X
Heckel, Waldemar (2020). Lexicon of Argead Makedonia. Berlin: Frank & Timme. p. 25.	X
King, Carol J. (2018). Ancient Macedonia. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. xvi–xviii. ISBN 978-0-415-82727-0.	X

A big thank you to user:Chewings72 for bringing this to AFD. I’ve been meaning to take care of it since I first started editing Wikipedia! BusterTheMighty (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeropus II of Macedon and explain the confusion there. The Italian Wiki cites Eusebius. Moreover, if Aeropos adopted the name "Archelaus" when he became king, then there is an Archelaus II, he's just not a different person from Aeropus II. Srnec (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and explain at Aeropus II, as Srnec suggests. That seems like a reasonable way of dealing with confusion that might have arisen from ancient sources or modern ones. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 6 February 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 Google Stadia#Games. ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worm Game

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

Fails WP:NSUSTAINED, merge with Google Stadia? IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Stadia#Games. I would agree that SUSTAINED is not passed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested is fine. Stadia is largely an historical curiosity at this point, no need to have articles broken-out for various bits of trivia that are associated with it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BS 7799

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a great article, but seems to be notable. Some sources that talk about it at varying degrees of depth (mostly academic): [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. PopoDameron ⁠talk 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources found by Explicit are sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per new sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:47, 27 February 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!} 08:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kekma Forum

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

No coverage from reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable coverage, maybe redirect to Shock site. It's not a very notable meme, either. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy delete per A7, as it says that the website holds a “significant importance to meme culture”, but never explains how so. The Know Your Meme link might count, but there are far more notable memes without Wikipedia pages. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources provided do not justify this having its own article. This page was also previously speedy deleted under a previous title (KEKMA FORUM in all caps). Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to speedy under G5 and A7. 67.174.19.131 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 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. Star Mississippi 03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic user interface

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

Can find very little substantial coverage; there are barely any mentions of this term in books or journals and those that exist are invariably passing usages of the term to describe a specific kind of interface rather than WP:SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. It doesn't seem to be notable as opposed to individual topics that would fall under this definition such as Screen reader and Virtual assistant. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Computing. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The term also describes the "voicemail hell" offered by many call centres as a way of serving customers without getting a human involved. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether a few sources which mention the term exist, but whether they are substantial enough to comprise significant coverage and support the content. Although the sources mention SUI they don't go into detail about the concept itself and none back up the definition given in the article. Two of them only include the term once. ― novov (t c) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any distinction between sonic user interfaces and voice user interfaces? Might be worth making this page a redirect to voice user interface if there isn't. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to voice user interface. That is a much more commonly used term. It is unclear what the difference between a "sonic user interface" and "voice user interface" actually is, and we don't have sufficient reliable sources to justify drawing such a distinction. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 19 February 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 10:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Pura Sanchar FM Baitadi

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

Did not revel any notable articles related to the topic in English or in native language (रेडियो पुरा समाचार बैतडी). Could not find link to its official website or social media page. nirmal (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 February 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 Football in Nepal. ✗plicit 11:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ncell Women's National Football Championship

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

Could not find any source to indicate notability. Seems like the sponsor name is attached to national football competition. nirmal (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Nepal as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 9 February 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geographia Map Company

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

Subject lacks the WP:ORGSIG to meet the WP:NCORP. The only source currently in the article only briefly covers this company, and I couldn't find much else beyond brief mentions, non-RS, and some letters to the editor with promotional language to boot, nothing to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Geography, New Jersey, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to flawed WP:BEFORE nomination. I have begun the process of adding reliable sources for this article—which involves a company that has been active on two continents for over a century—and its founder, Alexander Gross. StonyBrook _babble 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment venerable, renowned company: "A list and brief history of London Atlases". thehunthouse.com. Retrieved January 29, 2024. Geographia Ltd., was founded in 1911 by the Hungarian Alexander Gross (1879-1958). Originally "Geographia" Designing & Publishing Co. Ltd., of 33 Strand the firm produced street maps of towns and cities all over the world until being absorbed by Collins Bartholomew in about 1987. From 1923 to at least 1925 the company was called "Geographia (1923) Ltd.". Djflem (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage of Geographia is available in books on the more notable daughter of Alexander Gross, Phyllis Pearsall. For example:

Hartley, Sarah (2002). "Chapter 4: Geographia: Marking Out the Future". Mrs P's journey : the remarkable story of the woman who created the A-Z map. Pocket Books. pp. 27–37. ISBN 978-0-7434-0876-9.
Ross, Val (2003). "Chapter 12: The Mapmaker and Her Business". The road to there : mapmakers and their stories. Internet Archive. Tundra Books. pp. 115–123. ISBN 978-0-88776-621-3.

Additional coverage includes the following newspaper articles: [33], [34], [35], [36]. Jfire (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. In-depth coverage provided and article improved. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W34EY-D

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. While the subject did survive a 2020 AfD, it was under a looser set of notability criteria for television stations than we have today, and the bulk AfD it survived last year was more about some other stations in it that were notable than this one itself. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A run-of-the-mill 3ABN station turned a run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate station with no local content, undoubtedly without any significant coverage at any time. The first nomination was in that "transition" period where the walls were (very) slowly starting to close in on the overpresumption of notability for broadcast stations, but before the 2021 RfC that established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albany and West Lodge Bassets

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

Not recognised by any kennel club, search results mention a hunting lodge of this name but no reliable sources talk about this as it's own breed. Fails notability guidelines of animal breeds requiring recognition from a major registry and fails general notability. Article may have just been created as an advertisement for breeder. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G11; blatant advertising, filled with lines such as "The clamour of the Albany and West Lodge Bassets in full cry has no equal in hunting!" and a segment where the article discloses frozen semen is available for purchase. CoconutOctopus talk 07:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 5 February 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!} 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xianbei-Wa War (185)

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

This article about a purported war in 185 AD between the Inner Asian steppe nomads the Xianbei and the Wa of present-day Japan, is as fanciful as it appears. It lists three sources, which are, astonishingly enough, genuine, but none of them support the outlandish claim that the steppe nomads crossed the sea of Japan and fought the inhabitants there, nor any events of the year 185. The first source, "SGZ", apparently refers to Sanguo Zhi, and the cited passage talks about the reach of the Xianbei leader Tanshihuai - no mention of Wa of Japan. The second source, available online here, talks about Xiongnu burial rites and nothing about the Xianbei, let alone the Japanese. The last source notes that the Xianbei were defeated west of the Liao River in 177, a far cry from the grandiose claim that they forced the submission of the Wa and made them pay tribute. I must conclude this article is a hoax, and recommend that other articles by the same creator be scrutinized as well. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, China, Japan, and Mongolia. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A11. I think we need to start cracking down on editors who simply invent battles/campaigns/wars etc. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It looks like hoax to me, per A11. CSMention269 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems purely made-up, should be deleted. Noorullah (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is clearly bogus and agree that other contributions by this editor are likely deserving of additional attention. DCsansei (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No results on Google or Scholar. Maybe one should take a closer look at the other user's articles too. Killarnee (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same editor wrote Siege of Multan (1398), which has references that look likely to be spurious, if anyone has a moment to double-check this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 12 February 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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Travel System

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

This definitely exists, but is it notable? Been tagged since 2010, with discussions on the talk page since 2008. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Software, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a reservation/booking software used by the military. Coverage is simply where to find the site, on other military websites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't cleanup, just needs a typical copyedit. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't take long to find secondary sources:[37], [38], [39]. PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide SIGCOV of this system, and are more about potential replacements, which seem to have been canceled. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree those three sources are about (not) replacing it, but there's more sources... Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources exist easily passing WP:GNG. e.g. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], (primary) [45], (replacement) [46] (replacement, primary) [47], (replacement) [48] system details here [49]. Anything more than a quick search would find better ones. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to be fixed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here another source from 17 years ago in the Washington Post. It may be notably bad, but it's notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:49, 13 February 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 Association for Information Systems as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AISINDO

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

The organization existed, but the organization is not notable enough per WP:NORG. Google searches showed multiple passing mentions - this organization conducted forums and meetings, but none has shown in-depth coverage. The parent organization Association for Information Systems is notable, but the organization in Indonesia isn't notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Computing, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment redirect to Association for Information Systems or try to find sources and keep the page. NiLok223 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added recently one source. Maybe more good are still somewhere NiLok223 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 19 February 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 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZTC-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG primarily due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Article was kept in a 2011 AfD but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: It at least looks like there were some attempts at some semblance of local programming in the "Bay 63" K63EN days, but unless significant coverage in reliable sources to verify any of this surfaces, it won't count for much here. (But it's enough to add that "weak" qualifier; that still distinguishes this from the numerous LPTVs that never attempted any non-national programming.) The first nomination was definitely a conflict between enforcing what would now be seen as the "proper" GNG and the overpresumption of notability seen in pre-2021 versions of NMEDIA/BROADCAST; under the looser "standards" of that era, that generally didn't lead to many deletions, but Wikipedia and its inclusion standards have evolved since then. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is indeed an article: "After 12 years in works, Channel 63 hits air tonight", San Diego Union-Tribune 10/16/92, and there is a longer article in 1993 from the Los Angeles Times that mostly covers the station's attempts to spotlight gay sex in Balboa Park. (I kid you not.) The trail does dry up hard after the 90s, but... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 12 February 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palay Khan

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

Lacking a source and not very well-known. Historianfox (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hits seem to be only about the film with the same name, nothing found for a person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article, but I should have thought that anyone who was deemed notable enough to have both a biopic and a 13-part biographical TV series made about them was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've given the depictions a minor rewrite, and added a couple of sources on the 1986 film and 1990 TV series based on Palay Khan (just to prove that those depictions of him which allow him to qualify as 'notable' exist). I will admit that I am struggling to find a source on the man himself (best I've found so far was https://pashtunhistory.com/palay-shah-khosti/, but it seems a little bit too WP:SPS to cite in the article), but there might be some half-decent non-english sources out there. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Possibly notable. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. There are films (Indian and Pakistani), TV series, and novel based on his story.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This does not preclude a rename into an article about the trial and subsequent legislation incorporating information ab out the couple. Star Mississippi 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Sharen Gravelle

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

Clear WP:BLP1E case, so not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Ohio. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trial gained international attention and brought many inadequacies of the adoption services systems in Ohio to the fore. Strongly suggests that this is not a WP:BLP1E case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may imply the case is notable, but not these people. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is clearly about these people! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you just restructure instead of delete in that case, usually. That's how BLP1E issues are usually solved, if there isn't already an article on the event, convert it to be on the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's likely a wiki article that could be written about the law that was passed, not about this pair. A two year sentence isn't really notable (rather sad that's all they got in my eyes), but still doesn't affect their notability. They could be worked into an article about the new state law, or Adoption in Ohio or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but retarget to either an article that incorporates content on broader laws that were passed, or a more event/case focused article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this case in very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: That is not a policy-based argument. What you are arguing for is WP:INHERIT, which is explicitly a disallowed deletion argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INHERIT implies that there is an article on this case: there isn't. So if the case is notable just reconfigure it. The complaint is BLP1E, and the way to solve that is restructuring the article, not deleting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability requires sustained SIGCOV of a topic, and this couple has not received it. Coverage of the case may warrant a merge into another article though.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it seems that there is sigcov from different sources in the years following this. NPR, CBS-AP. However, I agree with others that the article should be reframed to focus on the case and not its perpetrators. Lettlre (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per sigcov. Pretty clear this has remained in the public eye. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and eventify. The core thing that has lasting notability here is more the abuse case than the people itself, and we don't presently have an article on the abuse case. Rather than having a pseudo-bio, it would be better to cover the event (which has lasting notability due to the effects on subsequent legislation) than the couple, in line with WP:1E (The general rule is to cover the event). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:43, 19 February 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. Notability passed per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dessi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Quoted by a bunch of publications as the founder of some social media company, but none of the articles are about him, they're about whatever he's being asked to comment on. The most WP:SIGCOV in a source is the Sports Illustrated source, but it's WP:1E. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this promotional dreck, this brief mention in NYT isn't enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Meets WP:GNG as he has received in-depth coverage for starting a marathon in two independent publications, namely Sports Illustrated ([50]) and Baltimore Fishbowl ([51]). He has also received in-depth coverage for founding the Westchester Digital Summit and the Baltimore Digital Summit in a notable magazine, namely Westchester Magazine ([52]). He is also regularly covered and quoted in media within a niche that Wikipedia needs articles on. Dabreis (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rewritten shouldn't be deletion, I guess from the article the subject is notable at least passed WP:ANYBIO. It needs rewriting to meet Notability tone and encyclopaediac standard. Otuọcha (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richards Heuer

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

This is a heavily WP:REFBOMBed WP:FANCRUFT article on a CIA analyst. Of the 13 sources:
- 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing)
- 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself
- 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website
- The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all
A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Military, Psychology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied from [53] that the subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His top two books are highly cited, which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY—it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world! Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 12 February 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 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Vasipov

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ilyas Vasipov

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 23:21, 29 January 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 January 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as a person "influenced a whole generation of St. Petersburg journalists" and the publisher of an iconic newspaper. Evilfreethinker (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 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 local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bramblefields

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

article doesn't establish notability (WP:N) KurtsWorld96 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/nature-reserves-places-visit-cambridge-16163304, by a Reach PLC WWW site, which to be honest looks to me like filler on a slow news day when the local tourist board is complaining. I haven't found much else, outwith government WWW sites of course. The search engines match on a local wildlife magazine that I cannot access, if anyone with better access wants to check that out. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a local nature reserve which is a statutory designation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale I don't think a statutory designation as a local nature reserve gives presumed notability — a national designation might. What notability guideline are you basing your comment on? Rupples (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples: WP:GEOFEAT says "of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this reserve's status as a local reserve is sufficient to guarantee notability. I'm not sure that it has any special protection beyond the fact the council decided that this bit of former farmland and allotment-space was better managed as a nature-friendly area. It hasn't got much history, and not much has been written about it. It just isn't in the same league as national reserves such as Wicken fen or Monks Wood, or even other local settings such as Paradise Local Nature Reserve, a location that has a long history and has been written about. In many ways, Bramblefields is served adequately by its entry in List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. But I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of deleting it. Before I found the list, my feeling was that the minor reserves of Cambridge would better be served by amalgamation into one narrative article about the lot, but this one is caught between a world of individual mini-stubs and a table that makes it very hard to expand on an individual reserve if information appears. If it does get deleted, I would not have any objection to it being re-created if someone finds useful things to say about it. Given its Cambridge location, it's quite likely it'll attract some local historian at some point in the future. If we do delete it, I'm worried someone will spot a red-link in the list article and remove it from there, which I think would be unhelpful to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. It's reasonably covered there, and there's not a lot else to say about it. Should someone study and write the place up a bit better, then editors can easily restore, expand, and cite the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. Agree a redirect is the answer here as there's insufficient coverage to pass the GNG and I don't think it has presumed notability. Didn't want to delete so grateful to Elemimele for coming up with a suitable redirect target, and I echo the points made. Rupples (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Richard

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

Can't see any credible claim to notabitilty here. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source something better. There are potentially plausible notability claims here, but they aren't adequately supported by reliable sourcing — but notability doesn't hinge on what the article says, it hinges on how well the article can or can't reference the things it says to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the things it says. But given how heavily Quebec-based his career was, it's highly likely that if he has adequate reliable source coverage to pass GNG, most of it would be in French newspapers that I don't have adequate access to in order to be the fixer. But we also don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist somewhere than we've actually been able to find — we can only consider sources that are actually in evidence, so somebody who wanted to claim that he got over GNG on French-language coverage would actually have to find and show his French-language coverage, and we can't just keep the article on a presumption that he might have more in French than we've found in English. So, again, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, and I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can improve the article before this discussion even closes, but this as currently written and sourced isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and even though it is still a work in progress, I believe it will help you reconsider. Saucoin (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added four references from newspaper articles that discuss Richard's qualifications: "U of O series to end with song recital" (Ottawa Journal, April 1972), "Richard ensemble highest in integrity" (The Leader-Post, February 1978), "Club to present The Magic Flute" (The Leader-Post, January 1974), and "Spanish guitarist, baritone to wrap up festival season" (The Chilliwack Progress, April 1977). Toughpigs (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Saucoin (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced either way, but just want to point out that the obvious WP:ATD would be a slight merge and redirect to Denise Massé. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the text that followed the link to his wife (pianist Denise Massé). I agree it did not jive well (i.e. conflation). Saucoin (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think recentism might be an issue here. References above are good enough. Here's another one from 1955. Also I see that User:Saucoin has added several sources to the article since the AFD started. Excellent work, but they should comment here instead of removing the AFD notice. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and it is still a work in progress. Saucoin (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your interest. Can you please explain to me why you relisted the article. Note that current editor comments were addressed and the article has been substantially revamped with cited information and sources Saucoin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please consider withdrawing your nomination for withdrawal. The article has now significantly improved, including citations and sources, to allay your concerns. Saucoin (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saucoin: It's okay, you just need to be patient. People will see that the article has improved. It doesn't help to keep posting messages on this page, and it might hurt your cause. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found during the course of the AfD, I want to highlight that the one linked by Nfitz strongly suggests that additional coverage exists - it mentions "national and international acclaim", which I might not trust on its own, but also a debut at Carnegie Hall in NY that was well received by critics, with quotations. Unless I've missed something above, we haven't found any of the critical response to that performance yet, but it clearly exists somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wacana Bhakti Seminary

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

The seminary existed but the seminary didn't pass the notability test per WP:NORG. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing notable here. Rangasyd (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How was the notability test done? A Google search in English and the local language? Cardofk (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Indonesian Wikipedia we can found a large article. Maybe it's worth working on this original. --Well I dont (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. The large article on the"id" Wikipedia is unsourced again confirming that it is non-table. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 7 February 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 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halesowen Chronicle

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

No sign of significant coverage. The best source I can turn up is this blog (?), which describes it as "a weekly freesheet tabloid newspaper delivered to households in the town of Halesowen in the south-eastern corner of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley in the West Midlands," which does not inspire confidence regarding notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack WP:SIGCOV or any other secondary coverage (besides the one dubious source the nominator dug up, which I also found while searching) than evinces notability for inclusion. MaterialsPsych (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in a 1991 business directory:
HALESOWEN CHRONICLE (Free) Est: 1986 Thurs Local news, sport and features, TV guide, letters, women's page, motoring, holidays, etc. Head Office: 51–53 Queen St, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV1 3BU. Tel: 0902 313131
I suspect that most of that is untrue, over 30 years later. Certainly the Australian WWW site, whose content is full of lorem ipsum and just screams unreliable source, supports none of the rest of the article at hand about a differently named subject. The non-directory content is unverifiable and Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long dead newspaper that was little known when it was alive. Athel cb (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass the threshold per other users' WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom, also no significant coverage. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:33, 13 February 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 Wayne State University#Media. ^Complex/_Rational 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne State Magazine

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

This article is about the alumni magazine for Wayne State University. We generally don't find alumni magazines notable for standalone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries, several others of which are at AfD right now), and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this one. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing except non-independent press releases like [54]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne State University § Media as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Michigan. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to proposed target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne State University#Media per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 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 Washington State University#Media. ✗plicit 11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Magazine

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

This article is about the alumni magazine for Washington State University. We generally don't find alumni magazines notable for standalone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries), and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this one (CASE gives out lots of awards).

A WP:BEFORE search turned up a surprising amount — [55] counts as one notability-qualifying source, and the previous alumni magazine has a borderline source of its own.

However, two factors push me toward merging and redirecting to Washington State University. First, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it seems questionable to have a separate article on this when there's just not that much to say on it and it could be covered at the university's article. Second, it was created by a paid editor, so retaining it would be WP:BOGOF. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Washington State University § Media as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Washington. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what's been said, I pulled up the Circle of Excellence awards for a single year, and there are about 300 of them. These are not notably scarce. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington State University#Media per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all Okoslavia (talk) 08:06, 12 February 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) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campism

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

I'm looking at the article here, and the longstanding one at third camp, and I can't come to the conclusion that the concept of "campism" is notable in a distinct way. The sourcing in the article is as follows:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New Politics (1)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
New Politics (2)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
Negation Magazine	Why not?	~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking.	This discusses the third camp during the cold war. It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way.	✘ No
Democratic Socialists of America	Why not?	This is the blog of a political organization. It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA".	This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp.	✘ No
Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N.	Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech.	If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS.	Source link is broken.	✘ No
Third World Quarterly	Why not?	Why not?	While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism".	✘ No
Open Democracy	Why not?	Per WP:RSOPINION, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact.	Moot as clearly not reliable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself. Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch (RSP entry) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory (Hindustan Times).

In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp, which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG. SocDoneLeft (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [56]. Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view. This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists. SociusMono1976 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion. Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it:

Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion.

If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion, it can be. The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 21 February 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 05:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Hafouzlik

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

No indication of notability, sourced only to open wikis. Draftification was contested. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Islam, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. It’s just some hobby universe on Fandom that has five followers. Probably made up by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original characters. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an original character, it is a meme ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete sry but Wikipedia is not the place for your personal memes and fandom is not a reliable source Killarnee (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, i only made this article as a joke hoping for a miracle that it would be accepted so yeah, i dont mind its deletio’. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:46, 10 February 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 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at the Battle of Badr

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

unsourced mess of a list that admits it's incomplete. blow it up. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Badr. A bit messy, but still not a good reason to delete the article. Plus the battle is already notable. Draftification can be an alternative based on what you gave. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of value in this article, just a whole lot of non-notable names, even the blue linked articles are very questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were possible for such a list to be reliably sourced (which it clearly isn't currently, and almost certainly never could be), there is nothing inherent in mere participation in a battle that would justify it under Wikipedia notability criteria. Were such lists permitted, we could potentially end up with monstrosities like a List of participants at the Battle of Stalingrad with entries running into the millions. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brachy0008. Shankargb (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a "participants" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for those proposing a merge. What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Reply At the bottom of the article, there seems to be a cited list of the individuals who participated, so that could serve as a source if it complies with WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss the merits of merging vs deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've got to agree with the main points stated above. Merely being in a battle doesn't merit a list article. Merging isn't appropriate, because there's nothing to merge: a reliable source, currently lacking, is required for each item to be merged. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also got to agree with the main points above, merely being in a battle doesn't give an individual any notability, it feels very WP:COOKIE to include every person, and as AndyTheGrump said, articles listing the participants at other battle would run into the millions. It would be little more than a database. Shaws username . talk . 00:40, 13 February 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 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas F. Tessitor

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable offices. No sources found to indicate notability. Tagged for notability since 2017. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 13:22, 12 February 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 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Fasana

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No WP:SIGCOV. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I couldn't find any verified information on when John Fasana was born. Also, John Fasana's website is just a Chinese web page saying that the site was created successfully. Busition (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Azeem Barkhiya

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

No information available in the third party sources, the 2 references given are written by Shamsuddin Azeemi, his disciple in sufism. I searched in Urdu, Hindi also but it seems to be non-notable religious figure. — Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Pakistan, and India. Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not have third party sources to meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've looked through some old revisions, and there are a good number of links in them that might be worth evaluating for reliability/independence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some opinions from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NBASIC. I've found two reliable English language sources and one Urdu language source, which I've added to the article. The subject has a substantial article on the Urdu Wikipedia [57]. The subject also seems to also get regular coverage in the Urdu Digest, but it needs a native speaker to review this. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evaluation having taken place... final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Kingdom

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

No significant coverage of subject; no charted releases. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jamaica. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She meets the 11 and 12 criteria for [[WP:MUSICBIO]] and is currently signed to Republic records Heatrave (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A musical artist does not need to chart or attain Gold (or higher) certification to pass notability, those are just some of the requirements needed to meet when the subject has passed WP:GNG and preferably WP:SIGCOV. The two sources from NME and THE FADER cited on this articles are in depth, and the individual has been a subject of the news in the past few weeks, see this, this, and this about her beef with Stefflon Don. dxneo (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, although the article could be re-written to be less promotional. --GnocchiFan (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of the sourcing would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. also some coverage of her musical work in Billboard [58], not extensive, but just enough. Also this in Teen Vogue, [59]. Other sources in the article are fine... Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 5 February 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 Lawrence of Arabia (film). Proposed alternative redirect target does not exist; this could be retargeted if that is created. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Bentley

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jackson Bentley

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

Fails WP:N. I could barely find any outside, reliable sources about the character. The article itself cites no sources JooneBug37 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely considered one of the greatest films of all time. I wouldn't be surprised if every character in it has enough scholarly analysis to have a standalone article. Just from a quick search: [60] (search for Bentley), [61], [62]. There's also sourced content in Lawrence of Arabia (film) about the other two actors associated with the role that could be included. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Brighton. The sources here are borderline for WP:SIGCOV. But there is enough reliable coverage to write something about how the filmmakers adapted real life people into composite characters. It's a rare niche where there is no real life person to merge these characters to, but there are multiple real life people who inspired these characters, and that is reliable information we should WP:PRESERVE. A list of characters is normal for fiction like this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does not need work but as Jfire said above there are several sources indicating notability. Otherwise, I would support renaming the page to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia as above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing about this character, such as listing sources that one purports to provide significant coverage of him, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This has potential but right now it is just a poorly refenced plot summary. Out of three sources presented above, the first one is just plot summary, second one gives me no access, third one gives me snippets with some suggesting analysis, but WP:SIGCOV is hard ot judge with snippets. So this has potential to be rescued, but unless this is done, I am afraid a soft deletion (redirect) with no prejudice to anyone restoring it and improving it with sources is the best outcome. PS. I'd also be fine with merge to a list as suggested above, particularly if we could rescue something from the deleted article mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus which is currently split between keep and merge/redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film article. Reviewing the sources given (I have full access to one of the book sources), they are really mostly covering Bentley in the context of recapping the plot of the film, not giving deep analysis of the character. Similar story for other sources I found in my search. Mach61 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is anyone actually stepping forward to make the 'Fictional characters in' article? Wizmut (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This close has no prejudice against renaming/rescoping the article, but there's insufficient consensus and it can be discussed outside of AFD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Japanese

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

Delete A page with a myriad of problems. I cannot find any information if the term "Foreign-born Japanese" is used as a distinctive category on its own. Seems like a badly written list with most content being taken from Japanese nationality law Tooncool64 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. The term is Diaspora. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. The article on Japanese diaspora is about the group of ethnic Japanese people who are in Japan (a large majority of whom are not citizens of Japan, and have never lived there), whereas this article is about the group of Japanese citizens who were not born in Japan (a large majority of whom live in Japan). Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what's been said here so far. Forgive me if this is a bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not sure what the underlying problem is here. We have, for example, List of naturalized American citizens, List of naturalized Filipino citizens, and a massive Category:People with acquired citizenship. This is a similar case, listing Japanese citizens who are not "ethnic Japanese" although the government of Japan does not acknowledge that such a category of people exists. Perhaps this just needs to be moved to List of naturalized Japanese citizens, since that's also a more accurate explanation of the current article's scope? ~~(The current article does not, for example, appear to consider children of two Japanese parents but born outside of Japan to be "foreign-born Japanese".)~~ Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would be better than just leaving the article as it stands. There are lists of people, surely not remotely complete, preceded by some totally unsourced waffle, including statements such as "Many who naturalize as Japanese also adopt a Japanese name, since names must be chosen from a list of approved kanji." which are demonstrably false (members of my family, for example). This could probably be sourced to some old book, as this may at some time have been true, but this is not a good way to make articles which anyone could consider "reliable". (All words I use with their natural English meaning not any WP:LAWYERCRAP.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the unsourced waffle; again, I think that a move to List of naturalized Japanese citizens is clear in scope and is not indiscriminate. Then the list would simply require expansion (probably from Category:Naturalized citizens of Japan as a start). Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the correct term would be Diaspora. Category:Japanese diaspora by country indicates there is no way this could list all the Japanese born in other countries. The opposite topic with Category:Naturalized citizens of Japan. Not even if it just included celebrities or the like. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the scope intended by this article. This article is explicitly about citizens of Japan, which is a separate topic from Japanese diaspora. In effect, since the Japanese government does not acknowledge the existence of ethnicity (and the series of articles on foreign groups in Japan also explicitly limits the scope of those articles to citizens of foreign countries, cf. Brazilians in Japan, Chinese people in Japan, Americans in Japan), deletion of this article would leave us with few places to discuss the subjects of this article as a group. If that is fine with everyone, I suppose the category will have to suffice. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Dekimasu's extensive edits, and to see whether the initial issues have been resolved or can be with a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep move to List of naturalized Japanese citizens pper Dekimasu. I'm not using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale, but Wikipedia does have lists of naturalized citizens and this could aid readers per WP:CLN as a nav list. // Timothy :: talk 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion in line with the prior relisting comment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per Dekimasu. Sorry previous closers, but I agree with everything Dekimasu has said here and see nothing further to add. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 12 February 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 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état

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

No sources since 2009, no real content, not notable separate from the main 2000 Fijian coup d'état article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am not convinced there is that much worth salvaging from a previous version of the entry, mentioned in the talk page, from before the article's purging. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there will be sources for some of it, much of it falls into the category of rumours and allegations. As all outstanding investigations were discontinued by the 2006 coup, there's no definite verdicts to support an article.

The key prosecutions - of Speight and his supporters, and the military mutineers - are mentioned in the main article. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fiji-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 5 February 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 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael Technical School, Surakarta

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass WP:NORG. There are some news articles concerning the school - their students won some competitions but that does not confer automatic notability, especially as the competition is not notable as well. None of the search results showed any coverage about the school in depth. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and no source provided ever since creation. Also per nominator, passing reference is not a point for qualifying WP:V. CSMention269 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, were these search results in English or the local language? Cardofk (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 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 Hymnology (tentatively), though I would note there is nothing at all wrong with a merge into more than one article, so certainly there is no issue with also merging some content to Anglican church music or any other appropriate target as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Four Anglican Hymns

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

I hate to have to do this, but I see no way that this passes GNG. This gets relatively few GHits, and by and large they are passing references in pages concerningother other work cited one of the four hymns (generally either Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending or Hark! The Herald Angels Sing). Meanwhile, the English Hymnal was a quarter century away from publication, and at this very late date I would have to imagine that if one compared all the different current Anglican hymnals one would find far more than four hymns appearing in nearly all of them— I dare say that there are probably a couple hundred which appear in every last one. Of the runners-up, "Sun of My Soul, Thou Savior Dear" didn't make it into the 1940 Episcopal Hymnal and while "Jerusalem The Golden" was retained in the The Hymnal 1982, the other three sections of Bernard's hymn were not, and I have never in half a century sung it. I would also point out that hymnals of the era did not officially assign tunes to the texts, which further blunts things: some recent survey in the Episcopal Church identified "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the favorite hymn, but it's a cinch that the preferred American tune, Hyfrydol, plays a large part in that. Furthermore, one can look in in the original work and see that this notion of a "great four" isn't his idea: it comes from the other work cited, by David Briggs, who I would point is not, at least by school affiliation, an Anglican in the first place (his school, Western Theological Seminary, which is in the Reformed tradition). Both of these works are more theological and devotional in character and are primarily interested in the writing of hymns in various eras, and not so much on the statistics. When all is said and done this just doesn't seem to have been that important an idea, and by the time the second edition of Briggs's work, it's likely that the number of such hymns was many times larger than four. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to Great Four (hymns). While it is obvious that these hymns no longer maintain the same hold on Anglican hymnological practice that they held 140 years ago, there is adequate sourcing to retain this article in a revised form. The Atlantic, this diocesan newspaper, this opinion piece, and about a dozen parish articles all utilize this title when discussing the hymns named as among the Great Four. It is clear, at least in my eyes, that the title enjoys at least some sustained notability. Now, there might be some citogenesis going on here, but I don't have the time to investigate further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the thing: I can find a fair number of references like these, about one of the hymns, I'm not seeing anything that has any interest in them as a set, and indeed, as I said above, even the original source doesn't mention them as a set at all: his "First Rank Hymns" number 105. "O Come All Ye Faithful" is in this group, at position 75 because for whatever reason only thirty-four hymnals of the set included it. At the time Oakeley's translation was forty-four years old; now, of course, its inclusion in English language hymnals must be well-nigh universal. But nobody is going to remark on it being one of over a hundred. So this "four" is really not a thing in itself; it's just a factoid which gets brought up when talking about some of the four hymns, and indeed, if I put in a date range before this article was published, I get almost no hits at all on the phrase, and just a couple of those are legit. It appears to me that the only reason why so many of these pages on the individual hymns mention this is because our pages on those hymns all mention this. Wikipedia is the source for all these mentions, as far as I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I find the argument by Pbritti above to be convincing, while Great Four (hymns) is probably a better title for the article. My vote is "weak" for a couple of reasons: we have specific rules on grouping things together at WP:NLIST, and the term "Great Four" seems to be less important now than it was a century ago. It also appears that Rev. King may not have coined the term himself. However, it appears that the term is used fairly often today to add some heft to professional discussions of the hymns: [63], [64]. Also, a Google Books search for the term "Great Four" leads to dozens of results for books discussing the hymns themselves and/or the musicological work of Rev. King when he did his study. Here are two examples: [65], [66]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion at this time, but if a consensus forms for deletion, a merge/redirect to Anglican Hymnology should be considered; the book seems very likely to be notable. I volunteer to create the book article if needed; ping me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a bit puzzled (as someone who was a practising Anglican for around 30 years) that there is only one of these "four great Anglican hymns" is at all familiar to me, namely Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. I'm not sure I've heard of all of the other three, and I don't think I've ever sung any of them. Missing, on the other hand, is Oh come all ye faithful, which may well have been the most popular of all Anglican hymns in my youth. I'm therefore wondering if Anglican is being used in an American sense (Episcopalian) rather than the more usual sense (Church of England). If forced, I would probably vote delete, but I shan't lose any sleep if the decision is to keep. Athel cb (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on LEvalyn's redirect proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Benham 1887 which is (a) contemporary and (b) William Benham, it is clear that the number four as the focus is quite wrong. Benham gives King's Hymnology and King's ranking of hymns almost an entire half page and does not mention the number four once. Benham discusses why it's going to be increasingly outdated (from the viewpoint of 1887!) as the years go by, too. LEvalyn might have the right idea here. We either cover this as the Anglican Hymnology specifically, or under an Anglican hymns topic of some sort. I lean toward the former.
But — people! — if we don't include Benham's observation and Julian 1892, p. 343 rubbishing King's methodology then Wikipedia isn't even as comprehensive as the encyclopaedias of the 19th century were in poking holes in this. We've sourced our article uncritically and primarily to the originator of the idea, with not even the third-party analyses that have been available since within a decade of its publication.
That said, looking for 20th century sources turns up Marks 1938 which confirms what this article says about Louis FitzGerald Benson doing a U.S. equivalent as The Best Church Hymns in 1898. (James F. King was vicar of the then St Mary's in Berwick-on-Tweed, Athel cb.) So limiting this to Anglican Hymnology might be a mistake. There's a hint in another source that Robert Ellis Thompson did the same as King and Benson with his 1893 The National Hymn Book. There's definitely a subject here, and the 19th century encyclopaedias suggest that it's somewhere under hymnology. See their article titles. But almost no-one mentions the number four.
The ball is in your court, LEvalyn and Mangoe. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hymnology as AtD. Uncle G's research is thorough and persuasive. I do think some of the information at the original article would improve the hymnology article, which is currently a bit slight. Not having looked closely at Uncle G's sources it doesn't seem like the Great Four Hymns are a "thing" even if King's identification of them attracted comment; rather, it seems like there's a broader discourse by which people were trying to identify the best/most-used hymns. If we don't merge somewhere, I think the article should be deleted. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Far above, I voted "weak keep" with a suggested title change, but in light of the more extensive research done by the subsequent commenters, I can support this latest idea to Merge. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Benham, William, ed. (1887). "Hymns". The Dictionary of Religion: An Encyclopedia of Christian and Other Religious Doctrines, Denominations, Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Terms, History, Biography, Etc. London: Cassell. pp. 535–536.
Julian, John (1892). "England Hymnology, Church of". A Dictionary of Hymnology: Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and Nations. London: J. Murray.
Marks, Harvey Blair (1938). The Rise and Growth of English Hymnody (2nd ed.). Fleming H. Revell Company.

comment All of the talk about merging or some similar resolution are not dealing with the issue I pointed out earlier, which is that it seems entirely likely that all the citations for this besides the primary sources are derived from our articles on these four hymns— well, two of these articles, because nobody seems to care to write articles in the popular press about the other two since nobody sings them any more. If we deleted those passages and this article, new citations would dry up because (as I've said before) once the term was coined, there seems to have been no interest in the idea until someone stated mentioning it in WP articles. And that's hardly surprising, because by the time of coinage, the original survey was quite dated, the English Hymnal having been published a little over a decade later. But at any rate,I just don't see why we need to keep promoting this notion, which is what we ae doing. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anglican church music#History. Perhaps a separate article can be justified but from an editorial viewpoint, we're better off integrating this material into a broader article that gives more context. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, although which target is up to the closing admin's sound discretion. FWIW, I am a practicing Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consensus for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:55, 27 February 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, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunas Bangsa School

AfDs for this article:

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass any notability requirement per WP:NORG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, fails WP:GNG as there is nothing on the page that distinguishes notability on why it would have its own page. Noorullah (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: School article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just existence is not enough. Lorstaking (talk) 13:16, 15 February 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 University of Oregon media. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Quarterly

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

This article is about the University of Oregon's alumni magazine. From that perspective, the initial outlook isn't too promising, as we don't generally find alumni magazines notable for stand-alone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries). Looked at as an overall media organization, it does seem to have a plausible claim of significance — its designer states that it's the oldest and most widely circulated publication in the state.

That said, I was unable to find any notability-qualifying source during a WP:BEFORE search, which included its former Old Oregon name. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Oregon media § Oregon Quarterly as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Oregon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nominator. The claim of being the oldest and most widely circulated periodical is definitely wrong. The Oregonian is dramatically older and more widely circulated. Maybe they meant just magazines? Either way this could just be a section in university article. The publication doesn't even have a standalone website, it's a subdomain of uoregon.edu. Steven Walling • talk 04:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregonian you've linked to is the daily newspaper in Portland. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a daily newspaper is also a type of periodical. Steven Walling • talk 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect seems appropriate. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 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 Machine to machine. If you disagree with this redirect target article, please start a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2Mi Corporation

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

All links on the page are dead. A WP:BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Could possibly see this being a redirect to OASIS (organization). CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OASIS (organization): per nom. I found some coverage from Google books and scholars but unfortunately none of them seem significant enough 94rain ^Talk 05:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machine to machine: M2Mi is not mentioned in the OASIS (organization) article so it doesn't make sense to redirect it there but they are mentioned at Machine to machine regarding the partnership with NASA. Pinging @CNMall41: and @94rain: for their thoughts about the target. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about OASIS. I looked closer ant it appears M2Mi helped developed the OASIS standard MQTT. That could also possiblty be a target after adding a mention of the company. Either way is fine as long as this page is gone as I do not see it being independently notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with delete. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are two different Redirect target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IABOT was able to add archived versions of two of the article's references. When you are considering bringing an article with dead references to AfD, it is usually a good idea to run IABOT to try to salvage those references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Normally I'd opt for a redirect, but this company is not *connected* with either of the suggested redirect targets - it was a research company that participated in projects, but still an entirely separate company. There's also nothing to suggest it was influential in its field. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A quick google search shows this article can eventually become notable, and there may be enough secondary sources to do so now. The way it currently is, it's not ready for mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk),

We need more information. What did you find in the Google search that showed the topic might/can eventually become notable?? As it is, this comment is an empty !vote with zero reasoning. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[67]https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/machine-to-machine-intelligence-m2mi-corporation-the-most-advanced-and-secure-m2m-iot-platform-provider - from 2021

[68]https://appel.nasa.gov/2010/02/28/ao_2-4_f_ames-html/ - from 2010

Looking at their website, they also had some brief mentions in tech magazines for awards, AFAICT. Unless there's something I overlooked, this could become notable. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those references are nothing more than company marketing. Silicon Review is a "magazine" where company's boast about themselves and their offerings, not reliable. This article doesn't even have a journalist mentioned. The other reference is a joint Press Release. Both of those references miserably fail WP:NCORP criteria. We don't write article for companies that "could" become notable, the test is that they are notable now or have been in the past. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighKing's assessment. The Silicon Review is a trade publication and the article is a "profile" which is essentially what the company says about itself. Same for APPEL; it's a press release and contains statements about what they say they will do or what could happen (published in 2007, though the link uses 2010). S0091 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machine to machine, learn something new every day. Good to know. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Lateral

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

I think this article should be deleted for failing WP:LASTING. In general, we only make football articles for plays that will be remembered for a long time, such as Miracle at the New Meadowlands. While a successful lateral for a game winning touchdown would be notable (Miracle in Miami), a failed lateral is likely not notable. While the game did have minor playoff implications (Dolphins clinched the postseason over the Patriots), it had very little lasting effect. I could only find one source describing the event following the immediate aftermath. Since the bar for a football article seems to be very high, this is likely unsuitable for an article and is better contained in 2022 Las Vegas Raiders season and 2022 New England Patriots season. 12.74.238.84 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Processing AfD for IP per request. SkyWarrior 15:30, 28 January 2024

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning redirect to the 2022 New England Patriots season (as the play impacted them more) rather than a weak keep though there has been some coverage about the play in 2023. [69][70] Alvaldi (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you have to look at why the failed lateral was so notable. It wasn't just any failed lateral, but an absurd, ill-advised play committed by what had recently been one of the most successful teams in league history. This inevitably resulted in extensive coverage in the immediate aftermath. Multiple sources dubbed it one of the "dumbest" or "worst plays in NFL history", comparing it to other "bloopers" such as the Butt Fumble and Colts Catastrophe. I also added a couple more sources that cited this play in 2023 well after the play's aftermath, including one covering the ending of the 2023 ReliaQuest Bowl and comparing it to this play. Hopefully that helps address nom's concern. WuTang94 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there was plenty of coverage of the play (separate from game summaries) at the time and it continued to get coverage in 2023. As WuTang94 explained, it was not just a simple failed play but a substantial blooper. Perhaps in time memory of the play will fade and it will not be mentioned again, in which case there may be a case at the time that this did not have as lasting an impact as some of us think it does. But for now I am not seeing a valid deletion rationale.Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond coverage in late 2022 and early 2023, there is no talk about this play. I don't think it's had sustained coverage... We could mention it briefly in articles about that season for each team Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This play did receive enough coverage as a standalone event that an article on Wikipedia still seems suitable. The play received both standalone coverage and dominant coverage in relation to the game in both sports journalism (e.g: Fox Sports, Sports Illustrated, ESPN) and the sports section of national newspapers (e.g: AP, USA Today, who ranked it alongside other infamous plays with Wikipedia pages, LA Times). The event even received late 2023 coverage courtesy of the Las Vegas Review Journal and Sports Illustrated, highlighting the event as an example of the Patriots' downfall that season and beyond. This play also had an impact beyond the day itself, as the likelihood (per FiveThirtyEight) of the Patriots making it to the offseason fell to below 20% compared to being above 50% prior to the game. As what WuTang94 commented above, the play itself was a major fluke from a team that was once dominant in the league, and it's a play that has received the cycle of coverage WP:LASTING requires: Coverage of the event, its immediate aftermath, and discussion long afterward, in a variety of topic-driven and national sources. MooseMike (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep. Multiple writers have regarded the play as one of the worst in NFL history (with some people comparing the play to the infamous Butt Fumble), and had the Patriots won this game, they would have made the playoffs instead of Miami. Even though much of the coverage of the play occurred in the immediate aftermath of the game, it was still talked about well after it occurred. For example, in the 2023 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, Virginia's ill-advised turnover elicited comparison's to Jakobi Meyers' lateral. This is not to mention that the play signaled a symbolic end to the Patriots as we knew them, as they have been downright dreadful since that game. 2600:100E:A020:B376:CCB6:A836:9818:691A (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriots weren’t good since Brady left. 2020 was a worse year for them then 2022. And yes while they would’ve made the playoffs over Miami, the end result is likely the same: playoff loss to Buffalo. Saying this play made the Patriots bad is false, especially when they won Week 17 vs Miami and also had a close loss against Cincinatti, one of the best teams in football that year. You cannot compare a basketball play to a football play seriously. Maybe it has some lasting coverage but not enough for a standalone article.--2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors in support of deleting or redirecting the page argued that there was not WP:LASTING significance of this play, or alternatively that while there was some nominally continued coverage, such coverage ended in early 2023. And while there is plenty of coverage from March 2023 on the aftermath of this play and how it affected Meyers, in addition to the uncontested swarm of coverage this got at the time it occurred in December 2022, it isn't true that early 2023 was the end of this event's significant coverage. Even in Autumn 2023, I was able to find multiple examples of WP:CONTINUED significant coverage of this event.
As for WP:LASTING, I think the notability here comes from WP:EVENTCRIT#3 (not WP:EVENTCRIT#1 which involves lasting effects), where we're asked to consider a much broader analysis. And that we've got WP:INDEPTH coverage that has WP:CONTINUED well after the event itself from diverse reliable sources makes me lean towards keeping this here. I do think that there is some enduring notability of this play, as such, and I lean towards keeping this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)

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

Does not appear to meet relevant notability standards; run-of-the-mill parish church, no significant coverage I could find. — Moriwen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. — Moriwen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As a litmus test, I checked the local rag, which returned few results beyond obituaries detailing funeral services. I found an article on the diocesan website, but in a few minutes' Google search, that was sadly about it. The article attributes the church to architect J. Gerald Phelan; that attribution returns no results on Google. As a WP:ATD, I would not be opposed to a redirect to Trumbull, Connecticut#Places of worship, where the church is curiously not listed, but could justify a sentence or two. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be one of many RC churches in Connecticut created by the same contributor that have been tagged for deletion. Per IgnatiusofLondon, an entry in Connneticut#places of worship should suffice MNewnham (talk) 23:08, 19 February 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. No consensus for deletion, and nom appears to have reconsidered; it looks like the rest, including a possible merge, can be sorted out through normal editing. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innova Solutions

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 02:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Keep notable company. If this page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Volt Technical Resources. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how you !voted keep on it, when the sources and coverage are so chronically bad. Why is that, I wonder? scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I gave it some thought. Perhaps subsidiary Volt Information Sciences could be merged into conglomerate Innova Solutions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Volt Information Sciences: Since the subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences is not qualified to pass WP:GNG, I prefer to delete this page and merge some but useful informations about this page to its parent company. CSMention269 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Information Sciences has been redirected to Volt Technical Resources, so its not a valid redirect target. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then merge to Volt Technical Resources. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Technical Resources is going to be deleted off of Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:CRYSTAL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to my user space Eamiles (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just found an independent review report on the company by a indepdenent consultancy, which likely make it notable per long-established consensus. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be in addition to the already cited industry analyst reports? One is by Everest Group, and the other is HFS Research; both are independent organizations. Eamiles (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Does this mean that we can close this AFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Ear

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

Tagged for notability for 9 years, fails WP:NCORP. It's a small record label that had an output of 30. Not to be confused with other labels of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte Surely you should bundle this AfD with Inner Ear albums discography? Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete - There are some very notable entries in the music canon with this name but this isn’t one of them. No independent coverage cited at all. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep or Merge. The Discogs page cited by the nominator gives 30 releases, almost every one of which was put out by an artist of some note. That suggests the label meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indies. However, a goodly number of them are by the founders of the label, the brothers Tore Johansen and Roger Johansen, both of whom, you'll note, have articles. So a merge makes some sense - but so does keeping, since the eventual redirect to one or the other musician awkwardly excludes the other, and so pragmatically a separate article kind of makes more sense. But leaving a redlink here is the worst possible conclusion. Chubbles (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I should have done more research before my vote, I made a mistake. The current article is thinly sourced but the label seems to clearly meet notability criteria and should be improved not deleted. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that the label may confer notability upon its artists in no way confers notability upon the label. We should never have articles on subjects which lack the secondary sourcing to grow beyond a directory entry, as this label does. Mach61 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discogs, last.fm and the usual musical sites that don't help notability. Besides things related to the actual inside of the human ear, there isn't anything about this record label. Dutch and Norwegian wiki articles have one source, as does this one, so no help there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and definitely needs to be moved if not. It differentiates from another article by one single capitalized letter. JM (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. I looked at the results for searches like "Inner Ear" plateselskapet site:.no and virtually all the results are brief mentions in the context of reviews of specific albums released by the label. The best result was [71], an interview with Tore Johansen that contains a tiny bit of detail about the label itself -- but still far from meeting notability requirements. Jfire (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the advantage of voting delete here - to add a redlink, rather than redirecting interested users to information about the label's founders (whose notability is not under question)? Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No link^[1] would be preferable, as there is no primary redirect target. Mach61 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So...if there's one primary redirect target, we should link to that target, but if there's two primary redirect targets, we should eliminate the link altogether? That doesn't serve the user interested in the topic; it actively frustrates the process of getting to relevant information that this website is carrying about the topic in question. Chubbles (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (redlinks should have some chance of being notable, and should be removed if this is closed as delete)

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 10:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Uruguayans

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

This seems trivial/WP:MILL and not like a notable intersection of nationalities. The group is tiny at 1,682 people. Two or three "notable people" are footballers who happened to play a couple of years in another country, which does not contribute to the constitution of a diaspora. The article is one of many offshoots of former attempts to create "foreign relations" pages between every conceiveable combinations of countries, and ethnicity pages intersecting every nation on earth. Geschichte (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chile and Uruguay. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added further notable Chilean Uruguayans who have lived most or the whole of their careers in Uruguay, including references.--Fadesga (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a group is WP:NOTINHERITED from individuals Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find it impossible to regard this as a notable topic. (I say this as someone married to a Chilean and with Uruguayan friends.) Athel cb (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the secondary sources given are actually centered on this group. If it numbers less than 2,000 people, it is probable that there's not much to say about it. Place Clichy (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization - see WP:CROSSCAT. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV)

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

Fails NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Article is a giant list of programs formerly, currently, and soon to be broadcast. Entries have no context, references, information. Nothing is sourced so nothing to merge. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 06:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to bad translation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the majority of the article is in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia, at least 90% of the stuff you see should be in English. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not qualified per WP:NLIST. And there has been no work of translation for quite a while. CSMention269 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 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 Bombo Radyo Philippines. ✗plicit 12:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKO

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It could be redirected to Bombo Radyo Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombo Radyo Philippines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombo Radyo Philippines per above; the two sources in the current article look like mere database entries which are worthless for Wikipedia notability, and a cursory WP:BEFORE search for other sources turns up nothing meaningful. Left guide (talk) 02:31, 5 February 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 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICS 219

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. No obvious good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if this is enough to establish notability (I don't think it is personally) but I found a few sources for this a training manual, an aid plan. There are other various official government documents but again this does not mean it is notable on the basis I have not yet found significant secondary coverage. EvilxFish (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A form can be notable, but it doesn't look like this one is. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of any significance or notability for a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:30, 13 February 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 Taj Mihelich. ✗plicit 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible One

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Terrible one

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Last AfD had mixed responses but ended as a keep - that was in 2006 when our standards were significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cycling, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tal Mihelich, I find some limited coverage about him. [72], unsure if this is a RS, but it does confirm Mihelich is related to the company here.Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taj Mihelich. The company exists, but there doesn't seem to be any info otherwise. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 5 February 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] Norington, Brad (4 August 2007). "Blog's breakfast". The Australian. p. 26.

[2] Hills, Rachel (28 October 2007). "Psephological blogger rhythms". The Age. p. 12.

[3] Price, Jenna (23 November 2007). "Playing possum with polls and politics". The Canberra Times. p. 9.

[4] Shanahan, Dennis (21 February 2008). "Pundits' margin of hypocrisy on polls". The Australian. p. 2.

[5] Kerr, Christian (15 June 2009). "Our blogs too analytical, intolerant". The Australian. p. 32.

[6] (redlinks should have some chance of being notable, and should be removed if this is closed as delete)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champions League Super Strikes}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorkha Higher Secondary School}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Dombroski}}