Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 19 April 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Health Clubs - Orlando Sportsplex

Genesis Health Clubs - Orlando Sportsplex (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 mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail

WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tedja

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only ever played one game. In my Arabic searches, I found Al-Sharq, a trivial mention, Kooora, which is no better, and this transfer announcement, which contains no significant detail. No sign of any

WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Waleed

Hassan Waleed (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)

Did have a brief professional career but can't find any clear evidence of meeting

Hassan Walid, about whom plenty of content can be found. My Arabic searches didn't yield any significant coverage about this footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyez (disambiguation)

All Eyez (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)

"All Eyez" is unambiguous, see

WP:PTM; see All Eyez on Me (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:
    WP:PARTIAL - A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title where there is no significant risk of confusion between them should not be included. There is no need for a disambiguation page for this. All Eyez on Me (disambiguation) already exists. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:21, 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! 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili

Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili (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)

We have Soccerway and Football Database to confirm that he exists but his career only lasted a few minutes. I can find Arriyadiyah but it's only a trivial mention. No evidence of

WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:08, 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion
.

Article can be restored if a Merge is an outcome editors want. For now, if you are seeking a Merge or Redirect, please list the Merge target article in your nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interventions by Russia

Foreign interventions by Russia (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)

Putting this up for deletion because the scope of the list does not seem consistent with the style or content of lists of this type in other parts of the wiki. Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 13 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! 23:07, 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. Independently of this AFD closure, an individual editor can propose a Redirect from this page title but it won't be an outcome of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chadley Wenn

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African

WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle view on a possible Redirect as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet GNG, and no suitable longterm redirects are available. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

New York Software Industry Association

New York Software Industry Association (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)

Appears to be defunct - no recent activity - can't find anything after 2007 - no notable references online. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:20, 13 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! 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A search at the New York Secretary of State https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/ says that the association still exists. The archived versions of the association's website include pages that redirect to another group, New York Technology Council, Inc., which later merged into NY Tech Alliance, Inc. https://www.nytech.org/ Perhaps references exist for NY Tech Alliance and its events, including NY Tech Meetup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non article. It says nothing and has no refs. 25 edits in 19 years, so could have been prodded away. Desertarun (talk) 20:51, 27 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 is no deletion rationale provided here in the nomination statement but opinion is unanimous that this article should be deleted so that is the outcome of this two week discussion period. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erento

Erento (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)

Someone previously attempted

Wikipedia:PROD, but I thought we should do AFD instead User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think it can meet current standards wrt. NCORP. Other issues mentioned by Drmies are also persuasive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Desertarun (talk) 18:00, 27 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. Thank you for compiling the source analysis table. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vương Xuân Nguyên

Vương Xuân Nguyên (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)

was previously pushed for

WP:PROD due to sockpuppet activities, but think we should have an AfD for it at least User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment apparently deleted twice on Vietnamese wikipedia: https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Xu%C3%A2n_Nguy%C3%AAn&action=edit&redlink=1 User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is created by a sock related to a very big PR ring with over 100 confirmed socks (see article talk page for more info). This person has no real achievement, so he's not notable. He likely paid this PR service to have his own article on Wikipedia. For your info, news article can be bought in Vietnam. All the sources are likely bought. It's a common tactic in Vietnam for PR. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:24FB:4C07:F5C1:5E5F (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address belongs to Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". On Vietnamese Wikipedia, instead of preserving articles, he deletes articles or reverts edits that he deems to be violations without providing valid evidence. Conversely, he adds spam links to Wikipedia. See 1, 2, 3, 4 203.205.26.11 (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's policy, all articles/edits from socks must be deleted and reverted. Admin Nguyentrongphu did nothing wrong here. There is a reason that all the other Vietnamese admins are ignoring this sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP belongs to a very big PR ring. See here. This ring has over 100 socks and has created hundreds of PR articles. We have deleted all of them after they were caught. Everything this sock says cannot be trusted (words taken out of context, misleading statements, false accusations and etc). Anyways, we should actually focus on the article's notability instead of throwing false, random accusation around. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Nguyentrongphu is the most anti-admin we have in Vietnamese Wikipedia for more than 10 years. Everyone in Vietnamese Wikipedia knows this. Claiming that he supports PR activities is laughable. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "WP:SOCKPUPPET accusation", he has no specific technical evidence, but only his own inferences. See: 5 203.205.26.11 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last check was successful. Current check is on-going. The checkuser is currently busy. Plenty of evidences were provided, what are you talking about? The fact is that this article is created by 2 different socks from the same person. User:Cuongpham8 is confirmed to be a sock. You're a sock too. I'm not a sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a sock of Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a difference between a ban and a block? Nguyentrongphu is never banned. You're a sock related to the PR ring. Nobody is consistently defending this article like you do. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Vuong Xuan Nguyen, this individual has ample evidence to demonstrate his prominence. A Google search using the keyword "Vuong Xuan Nguyen" yields approximately 37,500,000 results (0.28 seconds). See: 1 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
37 million results lol? Most of the results are not even the same person. If he's notable, why the need to pay for a PR firm to create an article for him on Wikipedia? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:GOOGLEHITS. Read our notability guideline here. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The results of the review by a reviewer have repeatedly confirmed that the accounts above are not sockpuppet activities. See: 1 112.218.57.237 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no technical evidence so far, but there is strong behavioral evidence (
Wikipedia:DUCK). User:Monpham (a very new account) recreated the exact same article created by a confirmed sock. Monpham also uploaded the picture in the article to Commons. Also, the sockpuppet investigation is on-going and not done yet. P/S: why are you using a proxy from Italy? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E565:345:8F07:4EDD (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd really like to see at least 1 non-Vietnamese source. All of the sources listed do not count towards GNG, and any other Vietnamese sources are likely to tell the same tale. According to
    WP:RSPS
    . Below is my source assessment–it is a bit lengthy.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WhoAteMyButter
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://vanhoavaphattrien.vn/vuong-xuan-nguyen-a18339.html No May be under MIC control; MIC permit or similar governmental control No Seems to be a PR article, plus other articles suggest it may be a mouthpiece. Yes ✘ No
https://baoquangninh.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nhung-dau-an-tren-chang-duong-20-nam-hoat-dong-bao-chi-3273185.html No MIC concerns. No No author information, MIC concerns. Yes ✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nghe-bao-la-mot-su-tinh-co-da-lam-thay-doi-cuoc-doi-3095.html No Source is Journal of Economics and Forecast - Ministry of Planning and Investment No Direct government source, likely to be no editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
https://www.doisongvaphattrien.vn/mot-so-bai-viet-va-tu-lieu-ve-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-a38874.html No Unclear author, only "PV". No Author,
cites Wikipedia
, and then dumps 55 links with nothing further (I am not going to source assess 55 links.) 		No One circular paragraph. ✘ No
https://ngoisao.net.vn/tap-chi-khoa-hoc-phat-trien-nong-thon-viet-nam-gap-mat-than-mat-va-khai-but-dau-xuan-a1407.html No Author is "Huy Hoang", article contains a lot of interviews. Source seems to state "Journal of Development Science Vietnam Rural Areas (PHANO Magazine) has done well its role as the mouthpiece of the Central Vietnam Rural Development Science Association" [translated]. Likely to not be independent. No MIC. ~ Source is more about the meeting, but does include some information on subject. ✘ No
https://www.nguoiduatin.vn/ra-mat-chuyen-trang-hoi-nhap-cua-tap-chi-dien-tu-van-hoa-va-phat-trien-a522998.html No Seems to be a direct mouthpiece. No No information about author. No Only in passing mention. ✘ No
https://tienphong.vn/chuyen-gia-sinh-vat-canh-ven-man-nhung-giao-dich-lan-tien-ty-su-that-bat-ngo-post1257714.tpo No VIRSPS, all of article content seems to be an interview or similar. No No information on author. Yes ✘ No
https://vtv.vn/kinh-te/dua-nhau-bia-gia-tren-troi-nguoi-choi-lan-khien-thi-truong-nao-loan-2020071010124399.htm No VIRSPS No Same author as above, most of content seems to be interview and may be copy of above source. Yes ✘ No
https://baohagiang.vn/rao-vat/202312/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tu-chu-duyen-voi-bao-chi-den-chu-tam-voi-nghe-sinh-vat-canh-7cb3a05/ No MIC concerns. No Seems to be entirely PR, unclear author (author listed seems to name a group). Yes ✘ No
https://baomoi.com/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-moi-c47667935.epi No Copy of first source, footer also says "BAOMOI synthesizes and arranges information automatically by computer program". No No ✘ No
https://dangcongsan.vn/thoi-su/le-tang-cap-cao-nha-bao-lao-thanh-do-phuong-457515.html No Seems to be mouthpiece. No MIC, mouthpiece. No Does not mention subject. ✘ No
https://hoinhap.vanhoavaphattrien.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-voi-bao-doi-song-va-phap-luat-a11039.html No Same concerns as 1st source. No Yes ✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-23064.html No Same concerns as 3rd source. No Yes ✘ No
https://phapluatkinhdoanh.vn/index.php/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-a2528.html No Interview, MIC concerns. No Author is Bach Hein, see 'baohagiang' source. Yes ✘ No
https://baodongkhoi.vn/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-chan-thuc-04122023-a123269.html No Copy of 2nd source. No Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As such, I don't see general notability. He may be important in official Vietnamese government inner-circles, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't meet GNG. More Vietnamese sources aren't going to help because of independence concerns. As for
WP:BEFORE, I can't find any sources that are (a) not based in Vietnam and subject to MIC, or (b) about the subject. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 05:26, 24 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! 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:
Turkish exonyms (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've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is

not a dictionary
. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as
    WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is
    WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s
    WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [1] [2], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an
    slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 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! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced
    WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete only per
    WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 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. Consensus exists not to retain the article at this time in mainspace, and there is a) some support for draftication over delete, b) comments from delete !voters which indicate their acceptance of draftication as an alternative, and c) no consensus opposing draftification as a valid

AtD. Hence, draftify it is. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Chance Cowell

Chance Cowell (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 see this article as

WP:TOOSOON, as I can only find substantive coverage from the Carese Courier (three articles) and a few Spanish-language sites about him choosing Mexico over the United States. He is 15 years old, has never played a professional match, and only represents Mexico at the under-15 level. I think this article should be draftified, but I understand if the vote is to keep it. I'm curious what consensus will be on this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [3], [4], and [5] among many more Spanish and English sources. Young player with ongoing pro and international career (already signed pro contractw ith senior Major League Soccer SJ Earthquakes with many sources already. Should be a clear keep if not a draftify at the very worst. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nom, I'm a bit torn here, as Cowell has never played a pro game and his international career is at the under-15 level. As such, he is not remotely notable as a footballer. I wonder if his current fame, and thus the focus on him, is entirely the result of his brother's success at Chivas and with the United States senior team. I ask myself: Would Chance Cowell be acknowledged at all if his brother wasn't Cade Cowell? And I think the answer is "No, he wouldn't." I think a drafitify is the most appropriate move here, but I nominated the article because I think there's is a fruitful discussion to have. Anwegmann (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has evidently performed well enough for his youth teams to receive a senior professional San Jose Earthquakes contract at the age of fifteen... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that means nothing until he appears for the team. What I'm saying is that this is an example of
WP:TOOSOON—the player clearly shows potential of being notable in his own right, and may become independently notable in the future, but as of right now, he's not notable enough to deserve his own article based on three caps for an under-15 national team two years ago and a professional contract, but no appearances, for an MLS club. Almost every source of any substance is predicated on him being Cade Cowell's brother. It's not a wasted article, and your work in creating it is justified, generally. But it needs to be draftified until he can "stand on his own," as it were. Anwegmann (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
These sources are not new. They were already present when the AFD was created. As such, nothing changes my mind. GiantSnowman 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he ought to get coverage or not isn't really relevant, he's just getting it. So therefore passes GNG. We shouldn't waste time imagining coverage in a world where his brother isn't Cade. Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE. By your logic, if they had a random sister who got coverage because she's their sister, she deserves an article. Anwegmann (talk) 22:52, 16 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! 22:53, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazakuka mosque shooting

Mazakuka mosque shooting (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 crime, no sustained coverage beyond the sequence of events. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the political situation in Nigeria, this almost certainly can be selectively merged/redirected somewhere (and given the relatively high death toll and the fact it's terrorism I feel it should be noted, somewhere, though not as its own article) however there is not enough detail in the article itself for me to suggest a target. Hm. I'll look into that later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Know you? I think to clarify I know your voting intentions to always vote keep. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is no consensus here, there is even more than one Merge/Redirect target article mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of home appliances

List of home appliances (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)

hopelessly open-ended and best left for a category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 6 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! 22:34, 13 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! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the list should be restricted to home appliances that get asked about in censuses? 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:B5DB:C733:E510:202F (talk) 16:19, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helsing Junction, Washington

Helsing Junction, Washington (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)

It's been a little slow, so I'm going to AFD this declined prod. I've had some free time so I've kinda beat this dead mule to death, and will pass the carcass to AFD.

Helsing Junction is a railroad junction, and like many of these it had a post office.

The article itself has two sources: GNIS (no contesting it unreliablity) and Thurston County Place Names, which states it is a rail junction and mentions settlers but avoids committing on whether they live there. There is a picture of "Independence Rail yard at Helsing Junction". I can certainly understand how an editor in a hurry could turn this entry into a town. It's entry also adds "See Independence" implying this is in that place.

In terms of what the local newspapers say: This news article (2002) from the talk page discussion [6] describes it as the place that Rochester used to be known as. The reader will need to lift a little here as I'm unable to provide a readily available link.

The above article is about a church's 100th anniversary, and a similar article was also written about this church on the occasion of it 70th(1972). [7] It states the church was built about 3 miles from Helsing Junction which it says is at Independence.

Just based on this, this article ought to be merged/redirected with Independence or Rochester, I'm leaning toward Independence. But that should be a discussion in this AFD.

Here is a temporal sampling of some further articles that I think show this is only a junction: 1964 [8], [9]; 1923 [10] mentioned in a news report from Independence. James.folsom (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete GBook hits are almost entirely rail-related, except for a few having to do with geology. The cited placenames work his a picture of the station, but nothing indicates it's in a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 13 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! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This junction is in Independence, Washington, so I wanted to say just merge there, but really Independence is barely more than a named rural community that itself should probably be deleted or merged. I suspect that the later church news clip assigned it to Rochester because by then they had forgotten Independence existed.James.folsom (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be a legally recognised place. Desertarun (talk) 11:24, 27 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. Okay, this discussion is closed. Now you can pursue other Merge options. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mastering engineer

Mastering engineer (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 has been tagged as having issues for two years for being based on OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Mastering engineer seems to be the
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Mastering engineers are, for instance, one type of recipient eligible to receive a Grammy award - Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical. Plenty of good quality sources are available on Google if you search for mastering engineer, happy to provide some if anyone seriously doubts that. BrigadierG (talk) 18:38, 6 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! 23:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD is about what happens with Mastering engineer not an another article you want to Merge into this one. BrigadierG is correct, unless you want Mastering engineer Merged into the other article (which I don't think is what you want, you need to vote Keep here and then nominate the other article for a Merge to this one or just be bold and do it yourself. But this is not a discussion on Mastering (audio).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolausPrime @Mach61 would you be willing to amend your vote per Liz's reasoning above? BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for not taking your comment into account earlier. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrigadierG@NicolausPrime I discussed this on Liz's talk page, would wait for response over there. Mach61 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete is a valid option, see below. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response given over there, changing vote to Keep.
withdraw this AFD and end it early. Mach61 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:MERGEDELETE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This doesn't apply here. Nobody wants to delete or merge
Mastering Engineer into another article. BrigadierG (talk) 18:24, 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. I find Safari Scribe's two contributions the most persuasive here. There's enough sentiment for deletion to form a consensus, and some decent policy-oriented opposition to at least one of the keep !votes to allow that consensus to be strong enough to delete. The potential AtD of a merge/redirect was similarly reasonably objected to and therefore isn't open to me as a closer. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dreyfuss

Ben Dreyfuss (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)

Per discussion on the talk page, I believe this article on Ben Dreyfuss should be deleted. I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben.

Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability (

WP:BIOFAMILY), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own. Geethree (talk) 13:45, 6 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! 23:01, 13 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! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – At this stage, I would delete and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself. Geethree (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INHERITED) doesn't mean we should redirect or merge. Tis article is credibly have no context, sources that analysed his characters or directing, any award?, what cognitive impact he has made. I don't see much of his parents role here . As a matter of fact, let's judge it in it's own accord! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:54, 27 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! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Malki

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Transfermarkt and Soccerway confirm existence but not notability. I found Alyaum but it's a basic Q&A with the footballer and with no analysis. This doesn't count towards

WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Massey

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

Fails to meet relevant WP:MUSICBIO as well general WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:57, 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Zlatko Radić

Zlatko Radić (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)

Can't see how this passes

WP:GNG. Most of the references in the article are to primary sources, and seem to largely be cursory mentions. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

What is there to reflect on? He was a member of a national parliament. Slam dunk. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind of some of these fine linked guidelines: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person, when e.g. a redirect to List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2003–2007 would suffice. Oh, wait, we don't even have a list of all of them in there. The stated goal of the guideline on politicians is to ensure that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete. Having this standalone article adds excessive detail while we are clearly lacking the basic general coverage, which is incongruent. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something I wrote above:
WP:GNG is immaterial. CJCurrie (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong keep - Blatantly obvious that it passes
    WP:NPOL, this should be discussed outside an AFD. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Some really odd comments by the nom showing complete misunderstanding for how Wikipedia works. I assumed the nom was a new editor, then I see they've been here 22 years and is an admin! Nom says the subject fails
    WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @AusLondonder what is extraordinary about wanting a politician's coverage to be commensurate to the person's significance? On the Serbian Wikipedia, there's probably a lot more content about Lapovo, so if they go into an appropriate amount of detail about whatever other local features, characteristics, people, ... they can go into the same amount of detail about the local politicians. Likewise, the English Wikipedia will contain an amount of information relevant to English readers that wouldn't necessarily be seen exactly the same on the other language Wikipedias. This is perfectly normal because it caters to the readers.
    I'm still not sure in what universe an average English reader would be interested in how some guy spent four years in the Serbian Parliament after getting in as a substitute, apparently did not do anything worth mentioning other than get into a bar fight back home (!), and then was later candidate number 189 or 229 and didn't get elected there ever again. The fact he later finished third in a mayoral election with 600-odd votes, but did serve on the municipal council, is likewise largely meaningless. This is like a compendium of useless factoids about a person. Does nobody have any qualms that this violates
    WP:NOTWHOSWHO
    ?
    At this point I am genuinely perplexed why y'all care so much for keeping this largely trivial information in a standalone article and don't even want to bother coming up with a rationale on who are these readers who we would be serving by keeping this as is. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree this will likely never be a Featured Article on the English Wiki, it still passes the threshold for notability. And while this is a separate issue, the information included in the article pertains to the subject's time in public life and is not just a random collection of facts. CJCurrie (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not random, but it is just that - information. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, not just information. We can summarize the relevant knowledge about this person's public life in a single list caption as it is now, perhaps referencing it to a couple of those primary sources and to the paragraph in that
    WP:POTENTIAL), then they can still get a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: I'd like to see this article buffed out a bit more with stuff he did in office, but the subject clearly passes
    WP:NOPAGE, then it can be redirected to a list of legislators; this article clearly does pass that threshold. Curbon7 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Curbon7 would love to see 99.5% of these testcases, esp. in relation to Serbia where the political scene is generally well documented. --Joy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, no post-1900
    WP:NPOL-passing politician has ever been deleted at AfD in the past 15 years on notability grounds. To repeat myself, that is not merely for no reason; a member of parliament will literally always have coverage of their activities, even if that coverage is not easily accessible on Google, whether that be in newspapers that have not yet been digitized or those that are in inaccessible or paywalled archives. Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Article should certainly be flagged for improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per
    WP:NPOL #1. The argument here isn't actually that politicians are exempted from GNG — national legislators virtually always pass GNG, and the real issue is that we haven't always invested sufficient effort into finding all of the best GNG-worthy sourcing to write the most substantial article with, and that's especially going to be a problem for politicians who served in countries where the strongest sourcing would be written in foreign languages that many contributors to the English Wikipedia can't read. But again, it's not that better sourcing doesn't exist, it's that Wikipedians haven't put enough work into finding it, which isn't the same thing — and that's precisely why we have SNGs alongside GNG, because the current state of an article is not always the end of the story in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Bearcat that's the thing. I couldn't find anything substantial about this person online, let alone proper secondary sources. For a 21st century Serbian politician, that's just not great. --Joy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what specific resources you actually checked? Do you have access to a proper database of archived Serbian media coverage from 15 to 20 years ago, or did you just do a simple Google search? A politician who was in office from 2004 to 2007 obviously isn't going to have a lot of recent coverage that would still Google well in 2024, but that doesn't constitute proof that at-the-time coverage didn't exist in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 — so you need to be more specific about where you searched, because stuff can fall through the cracks if we don't completely exhaust every possible resource. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, a general Google Search failed to produce much of anything about this Zlatko Radić. It found some others, but apparently not this one. I also tried with site:rs specifically, and in Cyrillic as well. If our readers have to have the skills of a private investigator to verify our article about something, then that's not really in the realm of general notability. --Joy (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The realm of general notability does not require all or even most of our sources to be recent news coverage that googles, and does permit older news coverage that has to be found in archives. So since Google is not a place where media coverage from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up, did you actually check any databases of archived Serbian media coverage where articles from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up? That doesn't require the skills of a private investigator to do, it just requires the skills of a marginally competent researcher. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 26 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue--no rationale was provided in any case. Drafts are taken up at

(non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 22:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel)

Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel)|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)

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 19:49, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo

Order of Accendo (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)

There are practically no sources. The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [11]. Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a redirect since 2015 that was just restored today. Unless you are referring to Veverve's nomination of 23 Discordian redirects to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger). Shapeyness (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily, as a hoax. Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention "Order of Accendo". It seems to be completely made up. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic. Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 24 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.

(non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Koopa Troopa

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

The Reception section for this article at present is incredibly small, and per a BEFORE search, I found practically nothing else on these guys. A lot of sources mention them in brief, but there is very little actual commentary on them in these sources. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that the Koopa Troopas have enough sources to build an article. I'd suggest a redirect to the Mario characters list as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't looked into additional sources myself enough to give a recommendation at this point, but I just wanted to point out that all but one source in the Concept and Creation section are primary sources - they are all just from the "Iwata Asks" series on official Nintendo websites. And per the
    WP:GNG, in order to be able to help establish notability, sources need to be "independent of the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 20:41, 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 redirect‎ to Quick Reaction Alert. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Readiness Platform

Operational Readiness Platform (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 appear to be a notable concept. Search only shows results for operational readiness for companies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The term does exist, the abbreviation 'ORP' being more used. They are nothing more than widened areas of the runway at each end or just one end (for take off in to the prevailing wind). It's really a historic term that fell out of use in the RAF with the end of the V bomber force. It should be redirected to Quick Reaction Alert after some kind of mention there. The 'Q-sheds' mentioned there were literally tin sheds by the end of the runway to protect interceptor aircraft from the weather which were replaced by use of hardened aircraft shelters (the nearest ones to the runway on a typical squadron HAS site). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was struggling to identify a redirect target. I agree with your suggestion, thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. A one sentence article. Desertarun (talk) 21:20, 27 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! 23:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley HS 138

Hawker Siddeley HS 138 (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)

Never built aircraft concept. I cannot find much of anything about this design, so I do not see how an article can be sustained on it. If there are sources I am somehow missing please let me know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter

Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (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 appear to be a significant, noteworthy aircrash. The guidance at

WP:AIRCRASH suggests this should be an entry in a larger list, nothing more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Event fails
continued coverage of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: In the future, it would be better if you cited something else than
WP:AIRCRASH
as it is an essay and should not be applied in AfD nominations.
Per the consensus from the
page
:

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, after all I'm trainsandotherthings, not airplanesandotherthings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 24 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! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about waste management and recycling

List of books about waste management and recycling (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)

A list of a few books about Waste management and recycling. Nothing to show that such a list has any intrinsic notability. Sources are for lists of books or links to google pages or library pages featuring specific books. The real bibliography for this topic would run to many thousands of books. This is a very small sub-set weith no indication that they are particulalrly relevant etc. There is a chance the list might be notable if the list was of notable books, but it isn't. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:45, 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. ✗plicit 04:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Giák

Tamás Giák (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)

Giák played one professional match but the coverage that I can find lacks the depth to pass

WP:SPORTBASIC. There is a BOON article about him, but it's mostly just a long quote from him and the writer does not address Giák in depth. Nemzeti Sport has some coverage but it's just very brief transfer announcements like Egri transfer and leaving for Austria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyagold

Priyagold (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 able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 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. ✗plicit 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (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)

As far as I can tell lacks

WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in most sources which are independent from the subject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had this on my radar since just before the most recent relist... should probably commit to getting it done today so I don't forget it again. Haven't finished my review of the sources yet, but I just wanted to note that these specific articles in The Australian are available in The Wikipedia Library's subscription of ProQuest (under different titles) for anyone interested. "Liberals in denial" is 1905750740 (TWL EZproxy link), "Mining legend" is 2834330126. Another article in The Australian is "No campaign stands by Gary Johns amid controversy" (2841623161), but that is also a name check, we can use it to verify that they a) have a Christmas party and b) people speak at it but that's pretty much it. As another way to access, I think most The Australian articles also let you skip the paywall if you access as a google AMP. Anyway, should hopefully be done with the rest of the sources in my list soon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While my search is not entirely exhaustive, I believe we can exclude with high confidence that there exists any coverage satisfying
    WP:ORGTRIV
    (of Mannkal, rather than the founder Manners) "Queen's Birthday" has approximately two facts about the organisation, and precisely zero analysis; "Manners made for mining" is the same. The other articles in Business News are largely "here is what they said" "here's one of them writing a column for us this week" etc. Surely very interesting, but not something we can write an article about the org from.
    There are two books that have brief mentions, Ferguson's 2012 Gina Rinehart,
    ISBN 9783031270444
    also mentions Mannkal, twice in footnotes, once in body text quoting their executive director and also in the index and appendices containing list of think tanks. I think Hagland's book is quite interesting, and could be useful in a more general article (on, you know, think tanks in Australia in general), but ultimately, again, there is almost nothing to write about this org itself.
    On the two Spectator articles, the first one, about Senator Price is written by, uh, Ron Manners. The founder and chair. So, not independent. Not that it even really says anything about the org. The other one is a reprint of their presser. As far as I can tell, none of the other score of articles that have a keyword match for Mannkal have anything to say either, most of them are just "this was written by Mannkal scholar/chairman/alumni".
    I do not see how we could possibly write any article based on what is published in independent, reliable secondary sources, and in this case, that mean we most likely shouldn't. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 24 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! 23:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDE Controller X

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

No evidence of notability, no sources, single external link now redirects elsewhere Greenman (talk) 11:44, 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Galaxy of Fear

Galaxy of Fear (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

notability guidelines for books. ltbdl (talk) 11:31, 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 speedy deleted‎ per

WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Arab-Chalukya conflict

Arab-Chalukya conflict (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)

Synthesis of two deleted articles

WP:OR, no sources either calls this by the name as seen in the title. Imperial[AFCND] 10:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

 Comment:: The creator is now blocked for sockpuppetry. The two earlier articles were created by the sockmaster. So it is an attempt of the sockmaster to revive the two of his deleted articles with a new name.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Created by a blocked sock, combining other deleted articles. I have also nominated it for
    wp:speedy deletion. So this AfD might be moot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 25 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! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Saningong

Akuma Saningong (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)

Purely promotional and written by a UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:NSCIENTIST, other claims are spurious, nothing on Google that isn't press-related. BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, this is a single-purpose account. Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a UPE article filled with lots of refs that are mostly blogs/press-releases/non-RS entries (I deleted most of them but the blocked UPE returned under a different name to restore them). Several other of the UPEs creation are also at AfD (e.g. Iulia and Delia). The subject is not a notable scientist but they are an active speaker who needs a Wikipedia page to construct notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep | Article is not promotional and written in neutral voice and it meets and passes
WP:NAUTHOR. I might be a single-purpose account because I had the urge to intervene for justice to be served. It shouldn’t infringe my rights not to comment and stand for justice and the truth. Let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. Visit the talk page of the subject in question, where other two seasoned editors and contributors have made comments in favour to keep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akuma_Saningong Sword-Emperor-dev (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Striking 2nd !vote by the article creator. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other UPEs from User:CharlesBNB include Iulia and Delia, Renzo Vitale, and Georg Weissacher. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 27 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Sophisticated Games

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 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 speedy deleted‎ by

(non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Democratic Republic of the Yoruba

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

Fails

WP:SUSTAINED. A lot. Give it a year and see what happens. Redirect is theoretically possible, but there is nothing in the article that hints clearly where to. It's impressive that despite this thing being a week old, WP/Commons already have access to it's flag and coat of arms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep: This article should be left. What I implore editors to do is to help expand with the multiple RS references retrieved. I view the article as a current event that will be robust in the future. It's worth a stand alone article. No redirect! Caleb Ndu (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi @
    sustainability guideline which is the nominator's argument. I see you are a new editor. Welcome to Wiki. Please don't be discouraged just in case this article ends up being deleted. I know it can be frustrating as a new editor when an article you've created and source ends up being deleted, but don't be discouraged. Read those two guidelines to help you understand. You did an amazing job on the article, but Wiki has its policies for article inclusion. So whatever happens, just keep up the good job and read the links to Wikipedia's policies posted on your talk page by an editor when they first welcomed you to Wiki. In the meantime, you can transfer the content on your own WP:Sandbox for example User:Caleb Ndu/sandbox whilst you give it time to see if it meets the sustainability guideline. If it ends up being deleted, at least you have it in your sandbox. I believe that is allowed.Tamsier (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Article deleted by admin as
    WP:G5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collision course

Collision course (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 is a phrase used, but I think it isn't a clear, notable concept and at best should redirect to Wiktionary. Long-time unreferenced. I would be interested to hear what others think. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?

AfDs for this article:
Is this music? (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 magazine/website. Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cfls (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
Voting without a rationale is unhelpful. Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:08, 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 keep‎. Closing as keep per HEY.

(non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Anna Green (Hollyoaks)

Anna Green (Hollyoaks) (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)

Lacking in sources since 2007, article only has two sources. One of the sources is

WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (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)

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails

WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 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! 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 25 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.

(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is

not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 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! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 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.

(non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:
List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is

not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 13 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! 06:34, 13 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! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 23 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 redirect‎ to Open-access operator#France. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

Kevin Speed (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)

Nominating on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at

WT:AFD
:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard (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 is another

WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 13 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! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Similar to
    WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 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 no consensus‎.

(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Shamako Noble

Shamako Noble (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)

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.
The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-
    KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 13 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 25 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.

(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Håvar Bauck

Håvar Bauck (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)

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck .I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject easily passes
    WP:NGRS) not reliable because they are African? ANairobian (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep:
    Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source. Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group) are reliable international travel publications. Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively. Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source. Ventureburn (by Memeburn) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source. 197.254.70.206 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing. One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy. I'm not sure we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS. A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews. I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Make a policy based argument. It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited.
    WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet. I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While
    WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works. Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work. 196.207.188.98 (talk) 12:13, 27 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) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns. This one [19]. Pretty strange! For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [20]. However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing. The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro.Tamsier (talk) 03:51, 27 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 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities served by Comcast

List of communities served by Comcast (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 list of every town in American that has Comcast cable does not belong on wikipedia per

Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 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 no consensus‎.

(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Bandanwara

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

None of the reliable sources

WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an
reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello @
WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
ImperialAficionado, thank you; I have been here a while now, so I flatter myself. I have some small understanding of the deletion process. Firstly, the name. If you have an issue with the article title, that does not mean it is a hoax or that it must be deleted. Spellings and linguistic cultures and traditions change over time, and the only difference I can see is that occasionally, sources insert an 'h' or possibly an 'n'. Neither of those is egregious enough to claim that, therefore, it does not exist. If you think the title needs adjusting, start a talk page discussion, go to
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would expect a "speedy keep and suggest withdrawal" response to have extremely good sourcing, but I'm not seeing that here. Is that quote supposed to be significant coverage? It's two sentences! So, that doesn't help us show notability. What about the others? I don't see any sigcov in that snippet from The Grenadiers, and what I do see suggests that all we'll get from that is the place name and a year. I could go pull it from the library and check it, but it's only the one hit, so that doesn't seem promising. Likewise, I could go order up Mewar and the Maratha Relations, but the snippet I can see on google books doesn't fill me with optimism; I tried searching from another angle and it appears to be about a sentence there also. What I can see of Pratap, the Patriot suggests the result is a false positive, since it's talking about Bhim Singh of Mewar. I get nothing from a journal search of my library, effectively nothing from google scholar, and this sole result from JSTOR (someone less blind than I am will have to find the references to "Battle of Bandanwara" on pp 4 and 5). -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Gay.co.nz

Gay.co.nz (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 demonstrated

notability. In a web search and investigation of available newspapers, only two potential sources were found: a survey output which did not discuss the website, but did include it in a list of websites when asking gay men about their use of various websites (PDF), and a guide book with only the line “Provides travel information aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual visitors, and vets businesses for standards of service and hospitality.” (see in book search: [21]). Personally, I do not see this as sufficient to meet “significant coverage”. For comparison, a similar site, gaynz.com, did at some point at least gain coverage in NZ media: [22] — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 06:14, 25 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 04:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper

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

Fails

WP:NEVENT - none of the sources in the external links are still functional. It does not appear to be a notable event. Given the last AfD occurred in 2006 (result was no consensus) it is appropriate for the question of notability to be tested again. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 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 keep‎ without prejudice against renominating in one month, when we have a better idea about lasting significance. Discussion about possible merger can continue on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (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 notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the deep reasoning you presented. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring forward to this page the pre-existing discussion relating to deletion of this article from the article's talk page. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would be aware of this discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is/are "they"? Can't you communicate more precisely? Whoever you mean by "they", are you saying there is no value in this ancestor page explicitly referencing previous discussion? Is it better to expect editors to find prior discussion for themselves (or not) instead of expending a few mouse clicks to put prior discussion in front of them? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plausible target for merging would be Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation. SWinxy (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the immolation really a "reaction"? I thought the trial merely provided a highly visible venue with numerous television reporters present. Is there some other connection? You can reach and say that both subjects are attention-seeking paranoids complaining of conspiracies and unjust persecution by parties including past and present U.S. presidents, but the particulars of the alleged conspiracies seem sufficiently different. Anyway, Agree, not notable 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. You may be correct in saying that the self-immolation isn't a valid or rational or something-else reaction to Trump's criminal trial - fair enough - but how does that make it "not notable" in itself? Clue - it does not. This discussion is about wiping the self-immolation out of (Wikipedia) history: it is *not* about whether or not it is a valid/meaningful/rational *reaction* to any trial. That is a notion introduced after the event by @SWinxy. You have sadly and blatantly been led by Swinxy and you have conflated two objectively unrelated things leading you to "agree" that Azzarello's impromptu cook-out is "not notable". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flusapochterasumesch: To clarify, I wasn't trying to conflate the issues, I just thought the fact it wasn't a reaction was a bit non-obvious and so justified a response. The non-notability seemed so obvious to me I didn't think any detailed justification was required, so I just said "yes, of course @ElijahPepe is right." I did not mean (but wasn't clear in my writing, sorry) to imply that the long rationale justified my agreement.
The reason I think it's obviously non-notable is
WP:SUSTAINED#SUSTAINED, won't be important history, and thus will fail the notability requirement. Full discussion of what it takes to make a single event notable at Wikipedia:Notability (events)
.
clearly applies here. If there are grounds for "additional enduring significance", please specify; I can't see any. This is one case where the disconnectedness is relevant. If the immolation were indicative of the public's depth of feeling about Trump's trial, it would be relevant to that larger, notable, issue. But someone photobombing the reporters in a particularly gruesome way has to be independently notable. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree. Also, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Cwater1 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I'm biased since I created the article about
Aaron Bushnell but I already see enough news about this incident that I think it will warrant an article. That being said, only time will tell. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep It has been covered by multiple reliable sources and was not a reaction to the trial itself.
MountainDew20 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As MountainDew20 stated, the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources and is gaining notability. MemeGod ._. (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the sources I've read, Azzarello seems to have had a complex political motivation behind his actions that went beyond merely reacting to Trump's trial. Only time will tell, of course, but it's a reasonable assumption that this incident will continue to be notable enough to deserve it's own article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I've read, I feel it's safe to say that Azzarello's motivations were indeed complex; however, the extent to which they were political is open for debate. Mental illness is tragic. DS (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but politics and mental illness are not mutually exclusive topics, and both of them are complex. 208.38.225.32 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear case of
WP:RAPID. Literally only 1 day has passed since the event. Not even the initial news coverage has passed, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep since no actual rationale for deletion was given. Cortador (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or more likely reassess in 7 days. Notability is unclear at this point. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a rare media case where graphic detail was caught in real time. I have also seen criticism in how security was handled around the scene. But most of all, this appears to have
    WP:DEPTH especially how the NYT went into detail about Maxwell's life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Headline news on all major media outlets. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're about 24 hours on from the self-immolation event, and the individual has now died. If this WP article didn't already exist and there was a debate about whether to create an article, I would be profoundly apathetic. However, the article does exist and the debate is about whether or not to delete it. In my opinion, it's a perfectly written/structured article that very succinctly details the event. It mentions exactly when and where it occurred - outside of a New York court - and it mentions a notable case being heard in the court at the time of the event. The protester chose his time and location to link his protest to the ongoing trial - going by the protester's writings it is clear that he believed his protest "mattered" in the context. However, it appears the protester was severely mentally unwell - while he perhaps thought the world would applaud his "stand" and understand the "importance" of his actions, it seems he was utterly wrong. The article doesn't give any validation to the individual's apparent reason for his protest, which I think is absolutely proper. Will the protest change anything? Probably not. Hopefully not. And the article doesn't suggest it will. I guess what I am saying, to summarise, is that this was a significant event, but it had no notable outcome (except the death of the protester and some burn marks on the sidewalk). Self-immolations in the past have changed the course of history. This one hasn't. There's something notable about the fact that a person's mental health led him to believe that burning himself to death for his "beliefs" would effect change and give him a place in history. I suspect it will: but only from the perspective of research & discussion into how contemporary society (and the internet) contributed to such erratic and meaningless self-harm. Also, books will no doubt be written about the trial in the court near to where Maxwell killed himself. And some of those books will no doubt mention Maxwell's suicide. Creating an article on Maxwell's pointless protest would be pointless. But deleting the existing article would be more pointless - it has value and it detracts from nothing/no-one.--Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject is undeniably notable and has had significant coverage. A Google search for "Maxwell Azzarello" on the news tab currently returns "about 7,840 results". Even if Google's result numbers are not accurate, you can clearly see that there have been dozens of articles in different publications, all of which are about this incident. GranCavallo (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, wiki is not a newspaper, will not pass the 5 year or even 1 year test. We do not cover every time someone with mental health issues tries to take their life in a spectacular way, and just because it grabs headlines for a day does not make it notable for the purpose of this project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I second Dreameditsbrooklyn's arguments. —Agentbla (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly significant coverage, I would argue that this does pass the 5 year rule when looking back at the overall Donald Trump trial. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York or List of political self-immolations. This event doesn't have sufficient independent notability to merit a full article. I know it has independent coverage, but there isn't much more to say about the event than what there already is in the article. Unless some major bombshell drops, there won't be more to say in the future. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:RAPID NAADAAN (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Not notable?! This is international news in multiple languages. Have we become this jaded? At the very least, merge it with the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable person, article is exploitation of an unwell person.→StaniStani 16:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is a person who deliberately committed suicide in a difficult, inconvenient and highly public fashion, for the explicit purpose of drawing attention to his ideological beliefs -- what is the exploitation? Acknowledging his existence is exploiting him? jp×g🗯️ 18:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this go against WP:NOTCENSORED? I don't think the article shouldn't stay up just because the deceased has been deemed "unwell". Yannkemper (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies to both of you. Notability or the lack of it is of course a Wikipedia policy. Basic human decency is of course not a Wikipedia policy.→StaniStani 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying nothing about policy: I am saying that your claim is false and your argument is bad. To reiterate, your argument here is that you think this guy was nuts, so "human decency" dictates that we go out of our way and bend the rules to prevent anybody from reading the thing that he thought was so important he set himself on fire to get people to read? What in the world are you talking about? Decency dictates we do the exact opposite of this. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To establish notability on fr.wp it is necessary to have two secondary sources (at least national press) primarily focused on the subject of an entry which are separated by at least two years. On en.wp, insofar as the person is recently deceased and was low-profile before the event
WP:NOT "trump" newspaper coverage (even if international) on the day of the one event. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't fr.wp and
WP:10Y is neither a policy nor a guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You need to reread
WP:PERSISTENCE. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you are mixing this up with
WP:BIO1E, there is in depth coverage of this subject as per the references used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize, I see where you a coming from. You have perhaps not put as much importance as I have on the fact that the person's name is in the title of the entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither BLP1E nor BIO1E applies here as this article is about the event. The point of those is that if someone's only known for one event, we should write our article about the event, instead of about the person. That's how this article is written. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article title should define what the article is about. If the entry is not about the individual, it should not contain the individual's name. If it were only about the event, it would be titled "Self-immolation in Collect Pond Park".-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would pass
WP:SUSTAINED given that major sources like the BBC are still talking about him 24+ hours later. [28]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This is an erroneous interpretation of
WP:SUSTAINED. If news sources cover an issue for a few days, that does not mean that it is not a brief burst of coverage, brief bursts of coverage do not have to be confined to a single day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
-insert valid name here- (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section under Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Maybe we could even put a link under Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell as it seems Azzarello was inspired by him. [29] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge to
WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. This will probably be forgotten in a few days, won't get WP:LASTINGCOVERAGE and the few paragraphs we can really use will fit well there. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it merged somewhere, I don't think it should be there. If you read his manifesto, it is not Trump-centric at all, rather it's anti-crypto and other self-identified ponzi type schemes, which he saw as an overall conspiracy. List of political self-immolations is a better place (where it already is mentioned)  • Bobsd •  (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the list of political self-immolations. While this event is certainly getting a lot of coverage, it is too soon to predict if it will have lasting notability. That being said, since this event is ultimately entirely unrelated to any wider political issue and was fueled by a random conspiracy theory, I personally find it very unlikely that any further discussion of it will be occurring months or years from now. There's really not much to say aside from the fact that it happened and that it was shocking but ultimately meaningless. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that it was "meaningless" due to analysis in secondary sources, so this is a keep argument. Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources. No one has presented any. It is all news reporting, which is primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons provided before Xlicer1 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable very notable. It was headline of the news around the world, it was discussed on Twitter a lot. But after reading some of the comments about recentism / notability / etc I'm not so sure anymore. In general I think wikipedia should be more permissive, when in doubt retain. Stefek99 (talk) 12:43, 27 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Shwapnopuron

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

Fails

WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:37, 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. ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mahtab Utsha

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

The article is very poorly sourced. The photos and content suggest a conflict of interest. It should be deleted for the lack of notability and verifiable sources. Many tangentially linked sources are gathered to create a wall of references, but none cover the subject in-depth, which is needed to prove notability. The subject has no claims of significance and does not hold any office that would confer automatic notability. There is one event coverage of his contract not being renewed at a private university allegedly over homophobic and transphobic comments, which generated some coverage but would fall under

Wikipedia:Oneevent. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Education, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person in question is one of the most searched person in Bangladesh. He is covered in almost all the mainstream media and the links of those media is referred. The pictures in question can easily be collected from his page and should serve as further evidence. And therefore, to suggest the 'photos' suggest a conflict of interest is not true.
    Given the importance and relevance of this figure in Bangladesh, I recommend the article to stay. Nafisa06 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Popularity is not the same as notable. Let us do a source review of the 78 sources present. Source 1: One line mentions the subject. Source 2 about his contract not being renewed at a private university and mentions the subject's transphobic comments. Source 3 and 4 have one line about him. Source 5 is about a University English club speaking competition in which the subject came third. Source 6 does not mention the subject despite it being used to claim subject co-authored booklet. Source 7 is a YouTube video. Source 8, an academic article written by the subject in the Philosophy and Progress journal, could not find an impact factor. Sources 9 to 28 does not mention the subject. Source 29 is a YouTube video blog. Sources 30 to 34 do not mention the subject. Source 35, YouTube video of a talkshow. Source 36 is a YouTube video of an interview with the subject. Source 37 is about subject's contract not being renewed. Source 38 is a YouTube video. Source 39 is a non-reliable source about the subject of tearing a high school literature book for featuring a story about a transwoman. Source 40 is a news report on YouTube. Source 41 is a critical opinion piece criticising the subject for his transphobic and homophobic comments. Source 42 has one line about the subject. Source 43 is a news report on his termination. Source 44 is a news article about a anti-LGBTQ rally calling for subjects reinstatement. Source 45 is not a reliable source. Source 46 is a news article about his termination. Sources 47 and 48 are about his termination. Source 49 is a duplication of source 3. Sources 50 to 62 do not mention the subject. Source 63 is a news report about the street protest against Israel, in which the subject was one of the speakers. Sources 64 to 70 do not mention the subject. Source 72 triggered my anti-virus. Sources 73 to 75 do not mention the subject. Source 76 is a Facebook post by subject. Sources 77 to 78 do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- 43 out of 78 sources, more than half, do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A stack of sources can be found in this article, but the sources have not written independently about the individual and most of the sources do not even trace the individual's name. Imitation of WP:NOTEBOMB. Ontor22 (talk) 06:21, 22 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 04:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badun

Badun (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)

All references lack

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:46, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Pantano

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

The subject is a poet, translator and academic. He is not sufficiently notable in any of those fields for Wikipedia inclusion. As explained on the article's Talk page, he has not been the recipient of any literary prize, shortlisting or other distinction. Critical commentary in independent secondary sources has amounted to just one newspaper review and one literary journal review of one poetry collection (published in 2010). Other coverage has been in web interviews etc, or self-generated. There is a strong suspicion that a major contributor to the article has been the subject himself, or someone closely associated with him. Previous versions of the article have included exaggerated claims (e.g. about his academic qualifications) that other editors have tried to correct, often with the misleading information being reinstated. The suspicion is that the article is being used as a tool of self-aggrandizement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosech (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete* I see bread and butter translation work (not enough for a Wiki page, but almost nothing in terms of sustained, independent secondary analysis of output (such as reviews in publications entirely independent with their own established editorship). Wiki had already rated this a Low Importance page. Coverage of their work is extremely small and the talk page reports Cosech’s extensive efforts to find it. The points about erroneous edits to qualifications by the proposer check out.
80.95.196.234 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clearly self-promotional article about a non-notable translator, poet, and associate professor (not a full professor, not a PhD). Does not rise to prominence or notability in any of those fields. Article creator, through IPs and sockpuppets, has done nothing else on Wikipedia besides this plus an article on the main poet he has translated. Persingo (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To add to the above, this is probably an autobiography, as it was started by an anonymous account tracing to the same time and place that the subject was a student back in 2005 in Tampa. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that the author of that initial 2005 article called Pantano "award winning", though I have found no record of Pantano winning any award either before or since. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the article has been a 20 year vanity project by the author himself, and has only escaped scrutiny for so long because he is so little known. Cosech (talk) 18:14, 25 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 04:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

Yuri Lushchai (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 person seems like a wonderful Wikipedian, but I do not see a claim to notability here or case for one as an author. He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B.
  • Delete: my saddest vote to date (maybe ever) but nothing to meet
    WP:42 (yes, he was 42). RIP ♡ .. what a legend! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:48, 26 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GE boxcab

GE boxcab (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)

Filed on behalf of IP 194.223.33.176 per their request. Their reasoning is as follows. This is procedural and I am neutral in this nomination.

"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG." The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution." Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the article such as:
  • A consortium consisting of ALCO, GE and Ingersoll Rand started series production of the ALCO Boxcabs in 1925. ALCO dropped out of the arrangement in 1928, after acquiring their own diesel engine manufacturer in McIntosh & Seymour and went on to start its own line of diesel switchers. GE and Ingersoll Rand went on with the production of the former ALCO boxcabs, but without ALCO. The locomotives were built in the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, except the unit for Canadian National Railway (CN), which was built by the railroad itself in their workshop. Seventeen examples were built in all.
  • a 60-Ton locomotive with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp
  • a 100-Ton locomotive with two of the same engines as the 60-Ton model)
  • a 120-Ton locomotive with a single six-cylinder 800 hp unit (1 prototype built for Erie Railroad)
Don't have any references connected to them. I would suggest that this article:
  • A. gets deleted.
or
  • B. instead gets draftified for improvements.
194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting for delete anyway 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked through the wayback machine, specifically http://sbiii.com/boxc1101.html and its self-published meaning the creator of this article has also sourced this article to some dude's self-published website. Look at the bottom of the article and you will see I'm spitting out the truth.
194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_20&oldid=1221142180"