Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11

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 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft ION

Microsoft ION (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources outside of crypto pubs, which are not notable per

Speedy delete: looks like a dead project to me, with no continuing presence and no notable impact on its launch. Update: according to the ION Github, Microsoft is only a sustaining sponsor, and this is not a Microsoft product, so even the title "Microsoft ION" is a misnomer; it's actually developed by the Decentralized Identity Foundation, who are themselves a redlink -- I've reflected the article to reflect this. Still a definite delete. — The Anome (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It had enough time to expand I don't see that it can be improved and its notability is very poor I'm sorry this is not a paper project nor a mirror. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There do exist various scattered writings about it online, but I haven't been able to find any
  RS. While the name misnomer is easily fixed with a page move, there's ultimately nothing out there to establish notability (which is of course, the issue). WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete : is Microsoft still working on it? I guess they dont after one google search. Or maybe in fiture for now DELETE AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saxoncourt

Saxoncourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No signs of news coverage, only coverage is in books about cram schools in clearly passing coverage. Even if we take the (now dead) Japanpost links at face value they are, at best, routine coverage. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Japan, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much self promotion here http://www.saxoncourt.net/en/groupnetwork.php Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I added to Companies delsort because although they operate schools, this is about Saxoncourt Holdings, Ltd. The page is a bit confused about whether it is a company or companies (I presume it is multiple companies held in a shell company), but that does appear to be the primary topic. Therefore
  WP:SIRS. Information is either passing, or lacks independence or is a primary source. Non notable company (or companies!). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  lack of significant coverage. This is not a high school or college, but rather a company that runs tutoring services and cram schools. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 15 April 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 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screams of Cold Winter (UK)

Screams of Cold Winter (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No real evidence of notability, and tagged as non-notable for years without improvement. Previously deleted and salted at Screams of Cold Winter * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing of notability in the article and the only real reference I can find on these guys is a review at soundspheremag.com which does not seem like significant coverage. Article references seem to be mostly local news. InDimensional (talk) 11:37, 13 April 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 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balls Island

Balls Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, New York, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This claims it was featured in national geographic [12], any thoughts on how to confirm and evaluate the claim.James.folsom (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know what to do. The link above is just a real estate ad, and they could be lying about national geographic. But if it's true then it might be notable. I can't find any mention in the newspapers for this. so I could accept that maybe there is a single secondary source on this place and still vote delete. But, I don't think others are going to go along with that. As far as I can tell, only national geographic subscribers can search their back issues, so....James.folsom (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Walter F. Burmeister's book The Susquehanna River and Its Tributaries gives this a sentence, and even then discusses this only as part of a group of islets. If even that doesn't document this island in depth, there is indeed little hope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the National Geo article exists, it's probably just a list of river islands or some such. If that article had said anything quotable about this place, the real estate ad would certainly have quoted it.James.folsom (talk) 22:04, 14 April 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 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell

Enda Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While the

I am, TBH, annoyed at myself for staying on the fence in the second AfD. And remain baffled by the "keep" recommendations in the first AfD (indicating that two of the five refs somehow and unequivocally supported GNG; When they're the same refs we have today; Still clearly not independent and/or passing mentions.) Anyway, while I'm loathe to relitigate, as the last AfD was "no consensus", and as (despite significant effort) I can't justify removing the hatnotes, I'm left with AfD (again).

TLDR version. Subject is a jobbing radio presenter. Like any other. Who also works as a voice artist. Doing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see notability, this is simply a CV in prose-form. I can't find mention of this person in any RS; what's used now is trivial or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  NOTCV issues, just another DJ, not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I'm into radio, so I know of this guy. But searching through the usual places you can find old radio news, there's just nothing for him other than brief mentions of him in "remember Atlantic 252?"-type filler articles. Similar in the Irish News Archives where he appears listed in local radio schedules but little else. Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 12 April 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 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcon 2

Arcon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage on the web and clearly fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. InDimensional (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has an entry in the reference book Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide. Most serious dead-tree reference works have stricter entry requirements than our notability guidelines. Mach61 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 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.

Marc Minardi

Marc Minardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing
  WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their performances. But the only footnote here isn't enough all by itself, and I've had about as much luck finding more as the nominator did. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There's some desire expressed to keep or redirect the page to the film, but discussion consensus is that insufficient reliable sources exist to support the page as a biography of a person not clearly proven deceased. I'm going to redirect the deleted page to the film, per thoughts expressed in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Grantham

Lucy Grantham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

This biography was originally deleted 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". The same objections apply to the recreated article: subject does not meet notability under

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • keep** seems to be notable based on references SanDiegoDan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV. Only one notable film ("Last House"). Her few other appearances were non-notable supporting roles in obscure low-budget/porn productions. The obituary cited for the Lucy Greenberg who died in New York in 2023 has no biographical information - we don't even have a reliable secondary source to verify that this is the same person as the subject. Muzilon (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of hard-to-justify sources in this article. Agree we can't see that the aliases actually correspond to her. It seems that both obituaries are of different people. All we have is one major film, and I don't think that's enough for

WP:NACTOR at least without some significant coverage devoted to her. Oblivy (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: Probably not meeting ACTOR, but we seem to have enough for GNG, a detailed biography and some coverage of her life after the Wes Craven film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b curious what you're seeing in terms of biography. She gets mentions for the Wes Craven film, but I only see biography in terms of the obituaries neither of which is clearly her. (Go ahead, change my mind!) Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources 2 and 3 mostly, seem to flesh out the article. An actress with one role for which she's remembered, the rest is nicely detailed. I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If by "source 2" you mean the engagement notice for "Miss Lucy Grunther" in the NY Times, I doubt whether that qualifies as

  trivial mention of a "Lucy" whose surname is not even given. Muzilon (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Agree it's a nicely detailed article but I don't see how this article has been constructed out of the sources, unless Source 2 and the Szulkin book have a LOT of biographical information.

• 1 - mismatch of birth year (1948 vs 1951) and the description of Lucy doesn't provide a clear link
• 2 - can't access but if it's an engagement notice that's not really notability-worthy
• 3 - dubious as it just says "Lucy" in a passing mention, although Lincoln did co-star with her in Last House.
• 4 - passing mention, unclear if this is the same person as it's not about a movie she's known to have acted in
• 5/10 - can't access the Szulkin book
• 6/8 - brief mentions plus a quote
• 7 - about the movie not her
• 9 - barely a passing mention, just lists her as an actress in the movie and in a photo caption
• 11 - mentions her a lot as part of the extended DVD features
• 12 - no content, possibly not about her (again, the 1948 birth year)

Oblivy (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last House on the Left, her only notable film. Muzilon (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I could have helped in improving the article but there was no any reliable source to what the biography says after making my research on google. The subject does not meet a stand alone wiki page but can be mention as one of the cast to the article movie The Last House on the Left.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well put. I wish this article could be saved but there just isn't sourcing. Perhaps merging with the movie article (although that implicates issues of undue weight being given to one actor). Oblivy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we could include a couple of sentences about her in the "Last House" article, but much of this biography seems to be veering into

  WP:PSEUDO. Muzilon (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is close to being reached. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:ENT Would have been helpful to see the original 2020 deletion nomination version of this article, but I find no access to it on Wikipedia. This current article seems to have been created as a new article. The article claims, "After starring in several porn loops in the early 1970s ... " but only two films listed before her so-called breakthrough. Of her five films listed, one was an unaccredited role, one was a short film. In one, she plays herself. There is just nothing that justifies keeping this. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I figured out how this was created, in spite of the original deletion. The Baudelaire Fortune created Draft:Lucy Grantham as a redirect to the title Lucy Grantham. So it looks like a brand new article, instead of the one that was deleted. So in other words, The Baudelaire Fortune found a way around the deletion process. — Maile (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wayback Machine has an archived copy of the version that was deleted in June 2020. Muzilon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! — Maile (talk) 03:28, 12 April 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 12:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greaves-Neal

Ben Greaves-Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Passing mentions found, no SIGCOV. As a side note, article has apparent history of editing by the subject.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Can't find independent significant sources. Won't pass
  WP:GNG. Besides, passing mentions can't be considered as references. Hkkingg (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Day Smith

Day Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Cycling, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All what is being found is press releases. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV as there are no independent, verifiable references.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Not meeting ACTOR, or even general notability. Nothing found in news or in a general search, other than some BMX websites and a rather bare Imdb profile. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White cake

White cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's more cultural content for this subject than just a description of the contents. White cake, sometimes also called silver cake, isn't just a yolkless yellow cake. From the historical viewpoint, it required not just a willingness to omit the egg yolks (which could be used in other dishes), but also having access to plenty of butter, refined wheat flour, and refined white sugar, which meant that it started off as a luxury and a status symbol (ISBN 9780199313396, "Wedding cake" by Carol Wilson). Just having pure white icing was an expensive status symbol in the 17th century; having a white cake under that icing was basically never done. Properly speaking, the modern white cakes – a butter-based layer cake – didn't exist until the latter part of the 19th century (ISBN 9780199734962, "Wedding" by Wendy A. Woloson), because before the baking powder revolution (latter third of the 19th century), producing a white cake would have been a technical triumph. The almond-based lady cake (from the 1830s) also omitted egg yolks and was the closest you could realistically get before then (ISBN 9780199313396, "Celebration cakes" by Stephen Schmidt), unless you wanted to risk a tough "white sponge" (ISBN 9780199734962, "Cake" by Sally Parham; that white sponge eventually developed into the modern angel food cake). On the cultural side, they became associated with weddings and with christenings. By the early-to-mid 20th century, the modern white butter cake had supplanted the traditional fruitcake at weddings (Queen Victoria had a fruit cake at her wedding; only the icing was white), and by the end of the century, for non-wedding celebrations, chocolate was more popular (ibid). Box mixes for white cakes were introduced around 1930 (ISBN 9780199313396, "Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro). Additionally, as white cake is used as a building block, there could be a fairly long section on variations or cake styles that are white layers with something added, e.g., Lady Baltimore cake. So there you are: with a couple of articles from two high-quality books from Oxford University Press, and you can re-write the whole article now. There are also some academic articles about white cakes, but their usefulness for an encyclopedia article is mostly not obvious to me (e.g., "White layer cake batter emulsion characteristics" or "Gelatinization of starch and white layer cake quality", though "Better White Layer Cakes Ahead?" may have nutritional information). If you were to go looking for particular content that is unique to white cake, I'd suggest looking into the difficulty of making a really good white cake with gluten-free flour substitutes. Chocolate, fruit, or spice are trivial to convert, and yellow's not too difficult, but a white cake is hard to get right, without any unwanted flavors shining through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another classic baking technique. Maybe this source will help: What's The Difference Between Yellow, White, and Vanilla Cake?. The Banner talk 15:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Classic cake, possibly the most widely-known of modern cakes. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice cake

Spice cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is this similar enough to Spiced breads for a move? Bearian (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think a

  spice bread article exists (the latter is a redirect to the spice cake article). Are you thinking of sliced bread? BaduFerreira (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Spice cake is a cake whose most prominent characteristic is the inclusion of strongly flavored spices. It is a category of related cakes, like fruitcake or chocolate cake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is my absolutely favorite type of cake but I don't think this makes me involved here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Relying primarily on "Cake" by Sally Parham in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, I there are two possible scopes for this article. The one that interests me most is the butter cake version after the baking powder revolution. However, there's also the much older yeast-based spice cakes from the 17th and 18th centuries (Martha Washington's great cake is at the tail end of that), which may be what Bearian is thinking of. If you imagine one of these spice-and-currants cakes, originally rather more like Raisin bread than like a layer cake, a modern spice cake translates that flavor profile out of the original yeast bread or the heavy fruit cake and into a modern butter cake. Parham writes 'The old fruited, spiced cakes baked for tea, too, were dragooned into the new butter cake family... Already darkened, if only slightly, by fruit and spice, these cakes gathered into a new clutch of butter cakes that were intentionally darkened to a fare-thee-well—by spices and brown sugar or molasses, to make “spice cakes”.' She also says spice cake was the second most popular category of butter cake during the 20th century (after chocolate, before vanilla), and that they adapted to the mid-century vegetable oil trend nicely. Examples of modern spice cakes include Applesauce cake, Carrot cake, and Gingerbread, as well as some less common ones, such as Gâteau de Sirop or Parkin (cake). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've found coverage in Food & Wine, Southern Living, and The Daily Meal with just a very brief search. I don't see any signs this dish isn't notable. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bozicevic

Isabella Bozicevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NTENNIS and also just about meets GNG thanks to sources such as [13] (bypassing the paywall) [14] and [15]. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bozicevic is just a bare pass of
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - While she barely meets Tennis Project guidelines, it's in doubles which has been on the wane for decades. She needs to show a bit more success before making it as a full-fledged article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also support draftifying as a form of
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Draftify - I agree with the two discussions above. Bduke (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  agree with this MaskedSinger (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mupen64Plus

Mupen64Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Found an article in Win Magazine, and a paragraph in CD-Action. Combining that with the Digital Trends mention I think it weakly passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h. I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [17], [18], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [19]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 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} 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Squire

Lyn Squire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any reliable source secondary coverage on this person. I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wales, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of
  WP:ACADEMIC. Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass
  WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for

  WP:PROF#C1.Contributor892z (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Contributor892z, I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]

Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [20] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is

WP:NOTINHERITED.Contributor892z (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Have to agree with

WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails

WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Fred Zepelin: so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment?Contributor892z (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal: my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution))[reply]

@Msrasnw: the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

[citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: and @Msrasnw: I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [21]. So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [22]. His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy

  WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to

  WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy, Cynthia Dwork, and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per
  WP:NPROF, it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting

  WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing

  WP:NPROF. Reviews of it include [23][24]. Other reviews of Squire's books include [25] (an edited volume), [26]. There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep: Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear
  WP:NPROF#1 pass. As stated above, c'mon. Curbon7 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A good case for passing
  talk) 19:03, 11 April 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!} 06:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Soong Yocklunn

Charles Soong Yocklunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An orphan article. Given the period when he lived, it was difficult to find sources. Small mentions come up in google books and Australian database trove. But nothing indepth to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, China, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I've read this a few times and I'm still not sure why he's notable. Got a vegetable cart, involved with a church and passed away. Seems too local to be kept, reads like a biography from a local museum somewhere. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Oaktee B that this article seems to be an orphan article, and most of the attention and reliable sources are from obituaries. The decision to delete or merge Wikipedia articles is usually made based on established deletion policies and guidelines, (WP: GNG), reliable sources (WP: RS), and verifiability. If the article does not meet these criteria, the only link will not directly lead to the described reason. The scarcity of reliable sources leads to unreliability. Yangpeifu (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I read the article. Didn't really see his popularity from the article. His contributions are also not documented in the article and the sources of information about him are not detailed.Rachel.zrq (talk) Rachel.zrq (talk) 04:24, 15 April 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!} 06:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Vats

Aditi Vats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass GNG or NACTOR. Has had no significant roles in the mentioned films. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Fashion, India, and Rajasthan. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no major roles in films. Fails
  WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails
  WP:NACTOR. The actress is not well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:33, 11 April 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!} 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Sun-il

Han Sun-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:GNG as it has no independent sources at all.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly fails
  WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:30, 13 April 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!} 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Song-hyok

Han Song-hyok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Google search brings up only press releases. Again the article has no sources at all beside external links.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly fails
  WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:30, 13 April 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.