Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 14

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. Star Mississippi 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Jol

Sohag Jol (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)

Only

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A

WP:COI-problem is also possible. This article reads as work from the marketing department desperately looking for sources. The Banner talk 22:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I have improved the page by adding more reliable sources.And these sources clearly passes
  WP:RS. So there is no question of deletion. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You have changed not a letter since the nomination... The Banner talk 08:59, 2 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!} 23:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: significant coverage in Aaj Tak Bangla and TOI; if sources are not judged sufficient,redirect to Zee Bangla#Drama series 2 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 8 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!} 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Setting aside the COI and SPI issue, all of the references fall under
  WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not a single one has a byline that shows it is written by anyone on staff which indicates churnalism or sponsored post.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Notable television series and clearly passes
  WP:NTV coverage. 103.121.36.100 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Note to closer - As expected, IP address part of the SPI related to this page shows up to vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note associated SPI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 21 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!} 21:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been Like This (disambiguation)

Been Like This (disambiguation) (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dab is unneeded since there's only one other song named "Been Like This". 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant disambiguation as there's only one related title.

talk) 19:41, 19 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.

2020–21 Wrexham A.F.C. season

2020–21 Wrexham A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. Crowsus (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fully professional division rule no longer applies and there will be plenty of available sources that can be used to flesh out the article. The National league is well covered even when teams don't commission their own documentary. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this existence of the documentary covering this season essentially ensures notability, despite the fact they did not play in a professional division. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while the documentary only covers part of the season, there's enough coverage. GiantSnowman 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep We still have an SNG for NSEASONS, however with the events surrounding the season, there should be more than enough sources that can be added to bulk it up. The article needs a clean up for sure. Govvy (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:37, 21 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. Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Jersey earthquake

2024 New Jersey earthquake (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 fails the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and New Jersey. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This earthquake has been widely covered in reliable and verifiable sources and as the "strongest earthquake to affect New Jersey since the 5.3 Mfa 1783 New Jersey earthquake" and as "one of largest to hit the East Coast", there is a strong claim of notability. It is not its size, but its rarity that earned coverage from some publications like Al Jazeera, very much outside the New York Metropolitan area. Scientific American has already questioned "How Likely Is a Major Earthquake in New York City—And Is the City Prepared for It?". One earthquake article for the state every 240 years doesn't seem to be too many. Citing a "ten-year test" as a rationalization for deletion is cute; I'm still voting Keep, but I'll set a reminder for April 8, 2034, to see if notability still stands. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @Alansohn, as it was a widely reported event -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given the coverage, it appears to satisfy
  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Apocheir (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  not only that, but on the talk page where that point was already mentioned, the 1984 Llŷn Peninsula earthquake and 2007 Kent earthquake were mentioned, so even if "other stuff" mattered, there it is. Tduk (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to either
  WP:SUSTAINED coverage suggests that this earthquake was not that notable other than being near New York City. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Let's see what the experts are saying. Rutger's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences:

Just Another Normal Day for Plate Tectonics: "Although exciting and novel to east coast residents, the tectonic events on Friday, April 5th represent just another day of plate tectonics. According to the USGS, 67 earthquakes of magnitude 2 to 6.8 were observed worldwide on April 5th, 22 of which occurred in the United States. The New Jersey earthquake was the largest event recorded in the United States that day, followed in size by an earthquake in Belden, CA. Worldwide, the USGS recorded 5 earthquakes with magnitudes between 3 and 4, and 25 earthquakes with magnitudes between 4 and 5 with the largest occurring in southern Mexico and Taiwan. All these earthquakes occurred along active tectonic plate boundaries, making the event in New Jersey even more interesting in that it was the only significant one to occur away from an active plate tectonic boundary."

In the Scientific American article Alansohn linked to above:

"Although not fully unexpected, the April 5 quake was indeed notable—on a geologically “short” timescale. “This was the largest earthquake in probably 140 years for this area,” says Judith Hubbard, a Cornell University earthquake scientist. The last one like it happened way back in 1884. “For people, that might seem like a long time,” Hubbard adds. “For faults, that’s pretty normal." Mooonswimmer 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of earthquakes in the United States or List of earthquakes in 2024, or Keep for now. While it may have garnered significant attention, sooner or later, it will lose its relevancy as there's barely any significant damage or injuries from the small earthquake. However, until if there would be more aftershocks or an even stronger earthquake to come (though that depends on whether if that fault could generate one or not), then either this would need comprehensive update or have another article altogether while making this to be a foreshock. For now this would be kept until there would be nothing more then it'll just be considered Low-Importance. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The lead establishes its significance, and the coverage/cultural impact this earthquake had was substantial. As geologists work to identify its source, it will continue to receive media attention. By the argument proposed, featured articles I've written on earthquakes on the past aren't notable either - an earthquake in this part of the US of this magnitude, felt by so many people, and causing damage seems noteworthy. ceranthor 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/RD Not worth a standalone article, coverage in Seismicity of the New York City area is enough. The American press is blowing this story. No doubt this is an interesting experience for many people, that's fine for Wikinews but not a standalone article. As a non-American living on the other side of the globe, I haven't heard more about this earthquake; unimpressed and puzzled by the need for this article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the earthquake got significant reliable and verifiable coverage, but the article should be deleted because the "American press is blowing this story" and you've decided that the press coverage is somehow wrong and can be written off based on your say-so? If being "unimpressed and puzzled by the need for [an] article" was an actual standard, 90% or more of all of Wikipedia should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing remarkable about the coverage, so what? The earthquake itself isn't anything special Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are a few things I notice here.

• Regarding the sources: While the quake did get significant coverage from reliable sources, much of the coverage is from
  WP:N(EQ)#Specific guidance
  typically indicates that the quake isn't notable. Indeed, the "Impact" section of the quake talks mostly about things that were resolved within a day (e.g. the Holland Tunnel's closure, which lasted all of 15 minutes). I was about to !vote that this article be deleted or redirected for that reason. However, if the earthquake were to have a larger aftershock or were to be followed by a more severe quake, then that would definitely be notable.

I'm still undecided for now, but I'm thinking this page can adequately be covered in Seismicity of the New York City area. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Industries such as catastrophe risk modeling, insurance, and reinsurance find articles such as this helpful. These industries concern themselves with areas where there is high exposure of assets. Even a slightly larger earthquake in this area could have caused millions of dollars in repair costs because the building stock is not built to withstand major shaking. Like it or not, a significant proportion of world's insurance capital is invested in the United States. As a researcher in risk myself, wikipedia articles of noteworthy earthquakes help in documentation. 72.22.168.242 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based argument. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Wikipedia:Notability (events), this earthquake is "significant" and "unusual" because it occurred in an area that is considered low seismic, which suggests that our understanding of seismicity in the area may be incomplete. The causes will be researched by scientists as there are theories of ancient buried rifts. This earthquake is "interesting" both from an academic standpoint and practical (risk industry) standpoint. 72.22.168.242 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Alansohn above. The fact that this was the most severe earthquake in the area since 1783 is evidence that this article passes the ten-year test. If there were a similarly rare earthquake in another part of the world, it would also merit an article. --Albany NY (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in line with aforementioned reasons. Will pass the 10-year test. Claim of Americentrism is dubious. In line with policy, a historically very rare earthquake in the most populated metro area of America easily justifies an article, especially if something like the 2008 Market Rasen earthquake has an article. --Lithium6ion (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to have to agree with most of the people here. I am currently a resident of New Jersey myself, and I live about 9 miles north of where the epicenter was located. This was indeed, an extremely rare earthquake considering the fact that the East Coast isn't that seismically active. It was indeed a 4.8 magnitude earthquake, which would make it nearly a magnitude 5, not 4. There was a good amount of damage done. AND, there are still aftershocks being felt and causing damage. Just recently, a home in Union was deemed unsafe due to it. Also take into consideration that Infrastructure on the East Coast is not designed to withstand earthquakes unlike California. The fact that you would put the claim of Americentrism is outright crazy. And there are plenty of articles regarding the earthquakes in the UK, such as the 2007 Kent Earthquake or the 1990 Bishop's Castle Earthquake which had very similar magnitudes. This article would be extremely helpful for researchers and engineers who could use this to help plan ahead in case an earthquake such as the one in Virginia were to occur again. And the article will pass the 10 year test. While yes, most sources come from news media outlets, there is still information being found about the quake and being released, so it will take time to update the article. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also said that "not much" damage was reported, but there is still a good amount of it. Despite the fact that the magnitude was small for this earthquake, it still caused enough damage and shock in the region to where it should deserve it's own Wikipedia page. And no, the page isn't news. It is an event, so the claim that it goes against WP:NOTNEWS LeSwiss1886 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU The claim like I stated earlier about the Americentrism is still bad. A better example instead of the Kent and Bishop's Castle quakes is the 2011 Guerrero Quake. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you

bludgeoning? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't trying to, and I apologize if I was in any way. I just believe that this page should be kept. I also forgot to add the previous 2 comments onto the main comment, so I just added on. Once again, I apologize if I did bludgeon. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hey, don't

WP:BITE.
2. Erm, isn't this their own reply? No reply below has them arguing. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it is my own reply, I also might have argued without me realizing. I don't know. But to be honest, I don't know if I bludgeoned or not. I just wrote my honest opinion on the whole matter. Like I mentioned before, I accidentally forgot to add on to my comment, and I couldn't figure out how to change that, so I just replied to my own comment. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you probably need to take a primer in Wikitext :)
(note that VisualEditor is not available on talk pages, so you probably want to look at the source editor part)
{{W-graphical}} has more quick-start links if you're interested! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the help :) LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas just got hit with a 4.4 magnitude earthquake. I have a live tracker on right now. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, how is this relevant to this discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just get a little excited sometimes. I guess it is also rare in that region for it's magnitude? LeSwiss1886 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. The thematic coverage satisfies NEVENT. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn and LeSwiss. It's definitely worth having a page about it since earthquakes, especially at its magnitude, strike around here very often. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean don't strike around here very often? Earthquakes in New Jersey are pretty rare at this magnitude. And I will defend this page to make sure it stays up. It is worth having a page about it. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Guess I should've read over my message before sending it lol. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. We all make small mistakes lol LeSwiss1886 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a rare and notable event. Very few earthquakes this strong happen so far east in the United States and near so many population centers. Poxy4 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Poxy4 That is very true. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This earthquake is rare and notable, because it happened in New Jersey, and moderate earthquakes don't happen often in New Jersey. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely covered in the news, and while the magnitude may have only been 4.8, it was still the strongest in 240 years. People will definitely remember it in ten years. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't make up my mind about retention but if it does, please include this to List of earthquakes in 2024. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in significant damage and/or casualties. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. That brings something up Aaron I need your opinion on. I made a page about a recent earthquake that happened today in Japan that caused 7 injuries and some damage, but it got moved to list of earthquakes in 2024 because a user by the name of @Dora the Axe-plorer said that "earthquakes in Japan are all too common, a moderately damaging 6 isn't notable enough for an article. This article is also poorly sourced." The poorly sourced part I was updating here and there, but I wanted your opinion. I just don't want my work going down the drain for nothing :( LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dora on whether we need a separate article for this one, actually. You can always copy your own work to relevant pages! (Note that

you need to do some stuff if copying other 'pedians' work, but you don't need to for your own work) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright. Will do. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeSwiss1886 I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and welcome to the project. The recent Japan earthquake don't meet the criteria for a standalone article. Actually, we have a list dedicated for article requests here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Requested articles and you may start an article from the redlinks. Cheers! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if am article isn't ready, you can prepare it under the Draft: namespace or your user pages first before moving it. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This definitely recieved significant in depth coverage as its location makes this earthquake rare.
  WP:WAX is also a poor argument to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. As a New Jersey resident myself I felt this when it occurred, and as noted by many here it received widespread media coverage particularly due to its rare occurrence. Additionally it was the strongest in two centuries in NJ as well from what I read. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Earthquakes are relatively rare events in the Northeast. This article can serve as a historical record of this specific event, documenting the date, magnitude, location, and any notable effects. This can be valuable for future reference and understanding historical seismic activity in the region.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: partly because none of the policies or essays cited actually apply as far as I can see -
  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Thus, I see no reason to delete it, but also Alansohn and LeSwiss1886 provide good rationale for a keep. Tduk (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Received tons of coverage and was rare seismic event in the region.

Perfecnot (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the next person here should just SNOW keep instead if they know how to do it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It has been a while since I have contributed to Wikipedia regularly (I might have known how to quickly implement User:Aaron Liu's suggestion a few years ago. I'm not sure why the initiator of this thinks the existence of this article violates the ten-year rule; this is the most significant earthquake to impact the New York City area since the stronger 2011 Virginia earthquake nearly thirteen years ago. The next time there is a significant earthquake in the area, this quake (perhaps instead of the Virginia quake) will certainly be referenced and remembered. Having lived in an earthquake-prone area as well as in New York, it is quite obvious to me why a similar earthquake in Japan would not be notable while this one is. Not that similar earthquakes even exist in Japan; the geology of the eastern US makes causes relatively minor earthquakes like this to be felt over a much wider area of hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter, hence the wide attention this event has received. LawClement (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This received significant coverage in numerous highly notable sources and easily passes the notability test.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:28, 20 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.

Mihkel Poll

Mihkel Poll (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 couldn't find sources to show he meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per e.g. [3] (postimees.ee) and https://www.emic.ee/mihkel-poll --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes
  WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw nomination per excellent responses above. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 16 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 merge‎ to 1945 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time:

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within
  WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:59, 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 merge‎ to 1958 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election

Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time:

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within
  WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 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 merge‎ to 1980 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election

Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time:

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1980 Canadian federal election, which is quite short and can accomodate it without the need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a valid SPLIT, but the parent article is short enough to contain the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 20 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. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robson Stevens

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

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an English

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Professional footballer, played in the Super League, previously had more sources.Fleets (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero evidence of meeting GNG, which is required for all athletes. I do not see any additional sources in the page history. Simply being a professional footballer is not a valid notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Merely claiming that he is or was a "professional footballer" is insufficient. Where are these sources? Tony (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 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 merge‎ to 1949 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election

Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time:

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: Every single other election with available polling in Canadian history has a similar page, with a similar scope of sources. If they are to be deleted, it would have to be up to the 2021 election, and the practice in most elections has been to have a polling page. CharlotteWhitton (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within
  WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 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. Owen× ☎ 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Davina

Dia Davina (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)

Unable to see why this person is notable. Many tags been here for years. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The article appears abandoned and the sources do not appear to establish
  WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Does not appear to meet either
  WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage is demonstrated. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Nothing else to add MaskedSinger (talk) 08:26, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest structures in the Commonwealth of Nations

List of tallest structures in the Commonwealth of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject doesn't seem to meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not hard to look at whatever respective country articles you want to compare; there's no indication the Commonwealth has anything to do with skyscrapers. Reywas92^Talk 22:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Reywas92. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly we won't create a List of tallest structures in the BRICS]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per NOTDIR. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:40, 21 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. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nek Muhammad Shaikh

Nek Muhammad Shaikh (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)

Clearly does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  samee  converse  20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good catch! fails WP:GNG as well. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete -- the only citation for the notability of this assistant professor is a run-of-a-mill list of awards given by the university to its profs. WP does lack articles on prominent Pakistani and other South Asian academics, so we should move more slowly here when evaluating, but based on the article there isn't enough to pass the average professor test. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NPROF.Southati (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mere stub with two poor-quality citations. I did some cursory searches of my own and was unable to find anything noteworthy. Apparently fails
  talk) 19:37, 19 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. czar 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia De La Rama

Amelia De La Rama (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 one is sort of on the edge here but, after a search, I found one article (an opinion) online, in addition to the articles here which seem to only make references to her in passing (as the wife of Sukarno). She does seem to notable for appearing in two films but in secondary roles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done

WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [4]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [5] [6]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Removed per

WP:SOCKSTRIKE

• Keep: this, this, this and this should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw these articles during my search, but again, they almost all refer to her in the context of being Sukarno's wife outside of the Philstar article, which has a disclaimer on it that it cannot vouch for the original source (this isn't to say it's bad, but verifying the orginal source, to make sure it isn't paid coverage should probably be done). The three newspaper articles are

    WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    WP:AUD applies to companies, and requires at least one source that is at least regional in coverage. The articles in the

    Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin should be enough to pass that. The Historia article also discusses her film career. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    The problem here is that these articles again only seem to cover her in the context of being Sukarno's wife, which still doesn't fix the

    WP:LOCALCOVERAGE tho, I will strike that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    The Philstar and the Historia articles both discuss her film career, which I feel is enough to show that BLP1E doesn't apply. Additionally, she probably has SIGCOV in offline sources. The Philstar article points to a magazine article from 1956, long before she'd married Sukarno. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]