Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 05	June 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Anuel AA album

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Actually no coverage of the actual topic because it does not exist. Just saying the he's going to have an album sometime in 2024 which doesn't even have a name. Coverage of the "album" is just some comments about it. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much too speculative at this time, and not enough confirmed info to justify an article under
WP:FUTUREALBUM. The fact that the rapper is working on a new album can be discussed at his article in the meantime. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Combination of speculation and sounding like a news report, both of which are frowned upon on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rave the Reqviem

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

Nothing of notability in the bands history, additionally many of the references are primary Facebook posts about their band members history etc and I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the band online, outside of some album reviews from smaller blogs. InDimensional (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. InDimensional (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, I found three sources with significant coverage of the band in Swedish media with a quick web search. [1] [2] [3] AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added these and other sources into the article now. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Added sources since nom are good as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets
WP:GNG. Additionally, sources added since the nomination provide substantial coverage, confirming the band's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Per Alex dxneo (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As initial author I'm going to abstain from voting due to bias, but I'd just like to thank the people who found the Swedish sources to put this article in-line with GNG. It's better than what I was able to find. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG.Dowrylauds (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Fletcher (rugby union)

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

The Stuff article listed as a reference appears to be the only example of

WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet
WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as The Press article makes them more notable than a lot of the other rugby players we have had in the past, but still not enough sigcov for GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Stuff and The Press articles are a start, and the players career is only really at it's beginning, but probably not enough at this stage to suggest a
WP:GNG pass. Could be draftified but not sure enough coverage would occur in the next 6 months for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not presently notable.
petri dish·growths] 19:43, 13 June 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 Real Succes Chișinău. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS Real Succes Stadium

)

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

Moldovan football stadium fails to meet

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, which makes sense, since it's basically just a soccer field. A 150-seat "stadium" is unlikely to have significant coverage in any language's media. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the team. The stadium isn't unimportant for a little stadium of its kind - it's hosted independent cups like [4], random friendlies like [5], the veteran's cup [6]. But none of that is SIGCOV, so we should move the photo and the co-ordinates over to the Real Succes page, which is notable but needs content. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real Succes Chișinău. Giant Snowman 12:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Giant Snowman. Svartner (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content to team page.
petri dish·growths] 19:45, 13 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating

this page for deletion, as there was no input from any third party last time (closed as "no consensus").

Motivation from last time still holds:

Fails
WP:GNG
See my first entry on the article's talk page here.
The article mostly gives examples of Syriac language used in Lebanon. The intended topic of the article is an Aramaic language (probably Western) spoken in Lebanon in earlier times.
From my knowledge, this language/dialect is not documented, thus not discussed in Aramaic studies.
Few to none
WP:RS. Shmayo (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already stated in the previous nomination an article about a language is notable. The article discusses both the vernacular Aramaic and classical Syriac as the two are tightly connected and furthermore the term Syriac was used at time to refer to Aramaic. Wikipedia does not care about what you do or do not believe from your own knowledge (
WP:WINNING rather than anything else. Regardless, I have amended the page to help distinct between the colloquial Aramaic and classical Syriac as that seems to be where part of the confusion is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

No need to accuse me of anything. There was no third-party opinion last time, which is what I am seeking here. To me, there is no "significant coverage" on this topic, thus no need for a separate Lebanese Aramaic article.

WP:OR (and plenty information solely on Syriac)... I do not see how this is notable with one reference to "Lebanese Aramaic" in Bawardi's book and another one in a project description by Wardini. Let's hope his research will give us some more insight in time. This is not comparable with e.g. CPA, which is actually discussed in Aramaic studies. Shmayo (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There was the third-party opinion of user Maclearie so that is false. Again, this is a contradiction of “the topic has no sources except for the sources which explicitly mention it but let us just deem them irrelevant.” Not sure where the accusation of me adding original research comes from as I have cited all of the information I added but I would like to see a supposed example of such. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party as in someone not highly active in this topic (i.e. Lebanon). I have not stated anything about you, this is not about you, but the article. Why would "Syriac alphabet" be listed under writing system? For example. Shmayo (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it is seen as bad if a user is more knowledgeable about said topic but you are right I made an error with the writing system and have corrected it. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please assume I know nothing about this topic. What sources are there that show this is a distinct dialect or language from the topic of Western Aramaic languages please? They don't have to be in English. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, besides a source from Wardini [7] and one from Bawardi [8] explicitly mentioning Lebanese Aramaic there is also the “Introduction to Aramean and Syriac Studies” by Akopian which mentions “the local Western Aramaic dialect” [9] as well as another source from Wardini discussing its “complex development which in some cases is parallel to, yet often distinct from, the development of its Modern West Aramaic cousins.” [10] Red Phoenician (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Are any of those significant coverage as per the GNG? JMWt (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wardini's sources are specifically about the language. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing much offered in the way of sources. The best source is apparently one written about placenames in Aramaic, but this is hardly demonstrative of a distinct dialect of the language. JMWt (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly describes it as distinct so not sure where this is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's agree to disagree. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahender Singh Tawar

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

Minor Indian bureaucrate fails

WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP built in routine announcements of promotions and transfers. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a short-lived article about a minor official in India. There just isn't enough independent coverage for inclusion. Waqar💬 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails the GNG, no assumed NPOL criteria.
petri dish·growths] 19:47, 13 June 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!} 21:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Business Enterprise Trust

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

Article is fully promotional, mostly unsourced, and from a quick search I haven't found anything significant about this organisation (just other organisations with the same name). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my reference search hasn't turned up anything specific with any depth to satisfy
petri dish·growths] 19:48, 13 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cubana Chief Priest

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

An article that doesn't meet

WP:BASIC." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Entertainment, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reliable coverage about an arrest, the rest are trivial coverage; sources 3 and 5 are point form lists or trivia items about this individual. I suppose he could a notable businessman, but the sourcing doesn't support notability. Doesn't pass criminal notability, I'm not sure what else is left for notability from these sources. I don't find anything extra we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was arrested for throwing money in the air [11], which isn't notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and per
WP:ANYBIO for lack of sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 05:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I'm the original creator of the article. I understand that it was moved to the main space and subsequently nominated for deletion due to concerns about unreliable sources and notability. After reevaluating the content, I agree that the article relies heavily on unverifiable sources and fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Therefore, I support the deletion of the article in its current form. I believe it's essential to prioritize accuracy and credibility in our content, and I'm willing to work on improving the article if feasible. However, in its current state, I think deletion is the best course of action. 2RDD (talk) 9:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@2RDD: it appears your response was generated by AI. Did you want to add any comments personally (humanly)? JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which AI? I think the article should be deleted. 2RDD (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete per the submission of @SafariScribe (Chat With Term)talk 13:25, 13 June 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 seems to be a consensus to delete or draftify the article. Given that it is unlikely anybody will come around to improve the article (given the creator's indefinite block), my sense is that draftifying the article will just result in an abandoned draft. If the creator would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to provide it at any time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[12]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[13]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See
WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails
WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to Closer. Page was created by

~~WP:G5~~ ~~speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply

]

WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"?

WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[14] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Cup

AfDs for this article:

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

We do not cover schools cricket, unless historically notable, which this is not. Fails

WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket. AA (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail
WP:GNG as I'm not seeing any SIGCOV of the tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This article seems to miss the mark on a few key points. Firstly, there's no mention of significant coverage (WP:GNG) of the tournament itself. Additionally, the article focuses on a school cricket event, which generally doesn't meet notability. Waqar💬 17:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to pass general notability guidelines as well as with the lack of significant coverage in any reliable and independent sources to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a school cricket competition is not notable. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG, and probably should have been deleted in the AFD 7 years ago (which was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation). Also delete 2015 SPA Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have nominated that one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 SPA Cup LibStar (talk) 04:40, 11 June 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!} 23:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Alessandro Devodier

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet

WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements with routine coverage (1, 2, 3, 4) JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage does appear to be limited to routine coverage as nom suggests. No suitable redirect per
WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jandré Blom

)

(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 rugby union player, to meet

WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Vish Burra

Vish Burra (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 clearly does meet WP:Notability (people)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloern (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 6 June 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 04:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red rocket (shotgun slug)

Red rocket (shotgun slug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article subject is a home-made projectile featured in a youtube video. This was picked up in brief articles by HuffPost and Wired during the
WP:ONE EVENT
silly-season articles.
On closer inspection, the 3D printed slugs are just cylinders with a pointy end which could just as easily be carved from a length of plastic, so there's no novel or meritorious engineering involved either (i.e. unlikely to be further papers or coverage beyond what is already linked. A search turned up nothing new) - this article is just about a guy sticking a lump of (quite expensive, laboriously printed) plastic onto the front of a commercially-bought shotgun cartridge and posting it on youtube for lols. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Hemmers (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has already been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expect that interest in this particualr item petered out quickly because it isn't even a very good shotgun slug. This is novelty ammo at most, even the two actual pieces of coverage acknowledge that and don't go into much depth about the actual projectile. That just is not significant coverage. --
^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to WXXA-TV. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEDG-TV

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

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
the need for a separate page). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with chatter) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with WNYA would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just relisting to be sure about Merge target article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WXXA-TV, which actually operated this channel. (The WNYA article certainly would have to include a mention of this one, but it is operationally unrelated.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the WXXA-TV article and/or WNYA: It sounds kinda self-explanatory in its self. WXXA had UPN as an secondary affiliation from 1995 when UPN signed on for the first time to 1998 when they signed primary O&O PAX-TV station WYPX-TV as an secondary affiliate and WVBG-LD as the primary affiliate on air. (On cable, WSBK in Boston or WWOR in Secaucus, NJ–New York City, NY, depending on the cable provider.) WXXA operated that cable-only station WEDG from 2000 until 2003 when WNYA grabbed the UPN affiliation. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WXXA, WXXA is the operator, and WEDG on its own can’t be notable. Danubeball (talk) 01:28, 12 June 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!} 05:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia women's junior national softball team

Czechoslovakia women's junior national softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the
WP:NTEAM because of a lack of coverage from RS. Let'srun (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Softball, and Europe. Let'srun (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This article isn't well-established, and I don't see enough reliable sources. Waqar💬 17:40, 8 June 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Shane Spring

Shane Spring (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 rugby union player, to meet
WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, Romania, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be limited, although there could be a couple of bits in Romanian or Spanish sources that are less easily accessible. No suitable redirect per
WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 03:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kart

Tony Kart (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)

Requested at
WP:AN, listed as a courtesy. User:62.165.250.83, please add your deletion rationale below. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Motorsport, and Italy. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fails
WP:NCOMPANY, may even be considered an ad. - 62.165.250.83 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. And see also Kosmic Kart, which should probably also be included in this AfD. It seems just possible that the parent OTK Kart Group company might meet WP:NCOMPANY, though I doubt it from a quick Google check, but neither article even attempts to demonstrate that the 'brand' is notable. Advertising, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find anything that would establish notability after a quick Google search. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems an open and shut case of not satisfying notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunate, but there just isn't anything out there other than the most basic of passing mentions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the independent, reliable coverage for this subject to meet the
WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 13 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Padamati Union Rahimuddin High School (H.S.)

Padamati Union Rahimuddin High School (H.S.) (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)

Reliant entirely on primary sources/no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough reliable coverage for this subject to meet the
WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 13 June 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 redirect‎ to Chukchi people based on limited participation. Malinaccier (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toko'yoto

Toko'yoto (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Chukchi people. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Russia. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (India)#Animated Series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gattu Battu

Gattu Battu (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
talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_(India)#Animated_Series: NB- can we slow down Afd nominations of Indian animated series for a few days, thanks? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 8 June 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!} 23:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Samantha Squalia

Samantha Squalia (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)

self-published website of the city council, which is not a notability-building source.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantive and better-sourced than this, but just using the city government's own website to prove that she exists is not how you get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the mayor of a small-ish (41K pop) town. The sources I can find are both routine (Mayor was elected, mayor did job) and limited to local news sources (again, a small locality). This person has been in office only since January, 2024 so while there may be potential it is clearly as yet unfulfilled. Lamona (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/_Rational 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trichy Tollgate

Trichy Tollgate (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)

Completely uncoursed, fails
WP:ORIGINAL research. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources on the page to get significant coverage on this toll junction and is not notable. It does not satisfy the legal recognition requirement. RangersRus (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a HUGE mess and, regardless of the (unlikely) notability, should be TNTd. Links here should be removed. Thank you, User:Cocobb8, for nominating! gidonb (talk) 16:21, 7 June 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!} 23:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Pamunu

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

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

I could not find any sources whatsoever, failing
WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Govigama, but since there is no coverage of the Pamunu people, I don't see why this should be done. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know enough about this topic space to feel absolutely confident in my recommendations. However, a not-insignificant number of sources appear to use pamunu in a different context, referring to the heritable agricultural land holdings, and not to the sub-caste of people who would work them.[15][16] Further, the Epigraphia Zeylanica is the source given in the article as current. Notwithstanding the problems of using 1930s sources for South Asian topics, the mentions of pamunu in volume 3 seem to fall along the "land holdings" sense and not the "caste" sense. There are some sources that use this term in the sense of this article, but they're generally low-quality, such as self-published books. Arguably the best such source is this paper, and even that includes pamunu only in a list of castes; also, I do not believe the International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education is a high-quality indexed journal and if those caste lists are actually cited to anything at all there, I can't figure out what it would be (there is no reference 11). Lubal (talk) 16:44, 6 June 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) 17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Waits

Justice Waits (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 believe this article about a book fails general notability and
WP:BKCRIT doesn't count for notability. Searching the internet for more coverage has turned up nothing but more trivial mentions. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Crime. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of weird because the book's existence (and other coverage) shows that the topic that the book covers (the "UC sweetheart murders") are notable. But we don't have an article on that. If we did this should probably be redirected to it as this looks to be the most comprehensive source. The book recounts the events, but yeah there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage on the book itself (though admittedly, I did not look too hard).

So as a really weird AtD if this fails NBOOK we could turn this into a stub on the murder case and have a mention of the book in an aftermath section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to sources presented below, keep, but IMO the murders may be independently notable anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
flap copy
, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources

Endicott, William (2005-11-13). "Tenacious: A journalist pushes to reopen a decades-old case". Newspapers.com
.
The review notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" is Davis' story of the murders and their aftermath, a meticulously researched and highly readable account that tracks the lives of the victims and their familes, the almost Keystone Cops-like investigations that followed and what the Riggins and Gonsalves families hope will be the final chapter. ... A preliminary hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold Hirschfield for trial is not scheduled until May. In this most gripping of true-crime stories, Davis concluded that while there may now be answers - brutal and nightmarish ones - there is no closure. Justice still waits."

Barnett, Dan (2005-11-16). "Biblio File Book Review: True crime: Local connections to the 1980 UC Davis 'sweetheart murders'". Chico Enterprise-Record. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The review notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" ($24.95 in hardcover from Callister Press) is gripping and gutsy reportage about the crimes and the subsequent missteps in the investigation and how Davis himself has become part of the story. ... The book is frankly critical of some of the investigators and Davis acknowledges that he has made more than a few people angry with his pursuit of the case. But Davis is convinced that Riggins and Gonsalves, all these years later, deserve the justice that has so far eluded them. The story he tells is harrowing, and the end is not yet in sight."

Hubert, Cynthia (2006-01-22). "Unraveling A Murder Mystery: Author Joel Davis fought to find justice for two slain college students while fighting his own battle with Parkinson's" (pages 1 and 2). Newspapers.com
.
The article notes: "The result is "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" (Callister Press, $24.95, 220 pages), published late last year, just weeks before the 25th anniversary of the deaths of Riggins and Gonsalves. ... In 2000, he decided to turn his curiosity into a book project. He never dreamed it would take five years to finish. By the time Davis began his research, the case had gone ice cold. The journalist dug through court and police records, interviewed family members and friends of the victims, tracked down old suspects and confronted detectives and district attorneys, over and over, with questions about their investigation."

Biggar, Alison (2006-03-26). "This Week". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The review notes: "Joel Davis' book, "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" intrigued me for three reasons. First, it sparked memories of what I would refer to as the serial-murder era in the late '70s and early '80s, when it seemed as if every few months there was a random crime spree, which then took forever to solve."

Whiting, Sam (2006-03-26). "A Very Cold Case / There's justice for the Davis Sweetheart Murders when journalist Joel Davis becomes part of the story". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The article notes: "Twice Davis had to pull "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" back from Callister Press when new information surfaced. Six months after publication he's pounding out a second edition and updating the story weekly on his Web site, justicewaits.com."

"Artists and Authors is this weekend".
Davis Enterprise. 2007-04-19. Archived from the original
on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The article notes: " Davis' "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders," is now in its third printing. The book chronicles the murder case of UC Davis sweethearts John Riggins and Sabrina Gonsalves. Davis is writing an epilogue based on the recent preliminary hearing of murder suspect Richard Hirschfield, who in March was bound over for trial for the gruesome 1980 murders."

Keene, Lauren (2005-09-11). "During the summer of 2000, Joel Davis sat down to watch a C-SPAN interview of three of his favorite authors — David Halberstam, David McCullough and George Will".
Davis Enterprise. Archived from the original
on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The article notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" (Callister Press; $24.95) finally saw publication last month, culminating a five-year process during which Davis chased down dusty, forgotten court documents, interviewed dozens of players in the case and, at the same time, waged his own personal battle with Parkinson's disease."

Adler, Rebecca (2005-11-14). "Local Murder Mystery". Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
The article notes: "His book project started as a yearlong reinvestigation into the murders and quickly turned into five years of searching through old court documents, chasing down investigators who had worked on the case, interviewing dozens of people and eventually becoming a crucial part of the story himself."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Justice Waits to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cunard's sources; the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee articles demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austrian Open

2024 Austrian Open (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)

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.
Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue.zoglophie^•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Austria. zoglophie^•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – As
WP:ATD. The event is ongoing and the article was recently created, if there are more sources they can be added accordingly. Svartner (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manels

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

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

An unsourced nothing. There was a bit more in it, none of it sourced, which I removed. I'm not good at
WP:BEFORE, but I couldn't even find a website for the company, just lots of other websites selling their stuff. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nomination, this is basically unsourced and also fails
WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews Archives just shows store openings like these two 1, 2. There are also news articles were it claims to start direct selling 1, 2. I don't think those references would be enough to pass
WP:NCORP. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no sources, no context, no wiki text, so why should it be kept?Dejaqo (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Galway. ✗plicit 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declan McDonnell

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Declan McDonnell

Articles for deletion/Declan McDonnell (2nd nomination)

Declan McDonnell (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 was a discussion in 2011, but I think views on this generally may have developed. The sources don’t indicate
WP:NSUBPOL. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Mayor could be notable, but I don't see much coverage of that position he held; [18] is typical of what I find, reporting on the goings-on of the city council, nothing to help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD. (As noted, subject's main claim to notability is as mayor of Galway. And is otherwise, albeit sitting quite a bit longer than other councillors, covered to the same degree as other local politicians/reps. However, outright deletion seems a bit drastic. As most notability is tied with the main office he held, I'd just redirect there.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:ATD per above. Djflem (talk) 16:37, 7 June 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 14:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

2020 Bluebird Aviation crash

2020 Bluebird Aviation crash (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 the
in-depth coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 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 deleted per
(non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Malabanias Integrated School

Malabanias Integrated School (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)

Declined and rejected at
WP:NSCHOOL. Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just in the middle of AfD'ing this myself, so easy decision which way to !vote. Zero evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: previously rejected, zero notability, promotional. It's weird how the creator moved the article to User:Deleted... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now speedied (and author blocked), so this can be closed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 6 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KXPD-LP

KXPD-LP (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; some references are dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks like the sources are reliable and qualify for
WP:GNG
. Plus, the dead links can be fixed easily.

Also, like what Danubeball mentioned, the sources are from legitimate newspapers. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 04:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I’d argue that the article’s still worth keeping, as these seem to be from legitimate newspapers, they just so happened to die. --Danubeball (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article seem to be independent RS covering the station. I'd say the
WP:GNG is being met here, dead links can be fixed. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWEM-LP (Oklahoma)

KWEM-LP (Oklahoma) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found some sources covering specific shows the station aired but couldn't find anything covering the station itself. Fails to meet the
WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete… Once again, some good sources, just not enough for Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:35, 12 June 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 Musk (disambiguation)#People. ✗plicit 14:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musk family

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Musk family

Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination)

Musk family (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)

Request to turn into Redirect to Musk (Disambiguation).
Article fails to demonstrate the notability of the "Musk Family" as an organisation or group, instead it is clearly serving as little more than a duplication of the existing disambiguation page. The short history section may have reliable sourcing but it is very blatantly written in terms of only Elon Musk and no-one else, and looks to be a cut down version of what's on his article's page which arguably evidences the lack of notability of the family as a whole.
Therefore the page should be turned into a redirect to the Disambiguation page until such a time noteworthiness of the family is established. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have never existed, it's an embarrassment. There is nothing notable about the Musk family besides Elon. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NLIST. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
this guideline that doesn't mean that all individuals in that family are notable by association (which this article seems to suggest). — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the same reasons mentioned above. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 01:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Marilyn Manson#Art. Owen× ☎ 11:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, etc. (exhibition)

Hell, etc. (exhibition) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The article presently only links to fan webpages, with the exception of one brief article in Greek. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, and Greece. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : to the art section of his main article [19], I can't find coverage outside of the links given, already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Oaktree. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 7 June 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 02:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Keane

Michelle Keane (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 candidate has not achieved general notability. The one reference here to a national newspaper (article on Michael Healy-Rae visiting a mosque) doesn’t mention Keane. Otherwise, I don’t see that mentions of Keane in Radio Kerry, satisfy
WP:SIGCOV. Most local election candidates could muster up some passing mention in local press. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ireland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NPOL are not met. We do not have sufficient sources to support the text of the article and establish basic facts - not to mention sufficient sources to establish SIGCOV/GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. She fails
WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in county council elections, even winning a county council election would still require her to pass
WP:NPOL #2 (where the test hinges on sourcing and substance) rather than handing her an automatic notability freebie, and this article is sourced nowhere near well enough to suggest a reason why she would qualify for special treatment over and above other unelected county council candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Very clear-cut case here. A defeated council election candidate with no other claim to notability. Nothing in this article to even make a claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 11 June 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. Withdrawn by nominator and with consensus of participants.(
(non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Fox (musician)

Steve Fox (musician) (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)

Unsourced and non-notable. No
WP:RS that I can find. — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw as the article is not what it was when nominated and is well sourced and written— Iadmc ♫^talk 11:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Canada. — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The charted singles help with notability, but this was in the pre-internet era, have to dig around the archives to find sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Didn't chart high enough to get critical attention here in Canada, tried several newspaper archives and there is nothing about this person. Nothing in the Wikipedia Library either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added an article (from ProQuest) that had information about Steve Fox which suggests there may be more coverage to be found. Steve Fox is a tough name to search for. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be several musicians of this name. One from the Japanese band the Godiegos who might not be the same person but appears at the top of the Google search. — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets
WP:BLP. @Oaktree b: Pinging for reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Your edits are most welcome! I may now consider withdrawing the nomination if no one objects — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Iadmc. Technically we need @Oaktree b to agree and change their !vote in order to be able to withdraw; otherwise it needs to run the full week, but your willingness to withdraw certainly counts for something and is appreciated. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I tried to source the cn tags to no avail but he may yet be written up in a Canadian music journal or somesuch which would help — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc No doubt you qualify for Wikipedia Library so for sure log in (it's improved a lot since it was first launched) and take a look at ProQuest – I was able to search on one of the song names and immediately found three more articles. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried ProQuest but need to be logged in. I'll try it out though — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc Right. First you log in to Wikipedia Library, and then you look for ProQuest on the main splash page, and then you connect from there for access via Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'm in! — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the sources above, we have enough for musical notability. I've adjusted my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana (payment service)

Dana (payment service) (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)

Promotion (e.g. ISO 27001 Certification and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Certificate...) no sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article not to promote but is it allowed if I change the information so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement? You can find information about Dana (payment service) Badak Jawa (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoroif I find your decision to give a deletion tag very odd because it should be after a few minutes or a few days after the article was created Badak Jawa (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
half a year isn't enough? BoraVoro (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoro and @Wcquidditch After I took another look at the article, it seemed to be indirectly promotional, so the article deserved to be deleted. It was my fault for creating the article without citing credible sources and I also recognized most of the references were promotional after I googled them Badak Jawa (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the sources provided on the page and Dana was on the top 5 as the most popular e-wallet apps in Indonesia in 2019,^{WP:NCORP. Additionaly, the app is popular among Gen-Z Indonesians and used by 115 million users.^[2]^[3] Concerning the article is too promotional, I have removed those advertorial content. Faldi00 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep per above. Also as one of top 5 mobile wallet in Indonesia according to 2022 report. It's not difficult to look up independent source or even academic publication on DANA, so it should pass NCORP. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

^ Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

^ Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

Keep: The tone has been improved, and on 2023 it reached 170 million users, so it should pass NCORP. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 00:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three sources above show that the payment system is notable, I'm ok with the sources, notability is met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 6 June 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!} 05:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Rising Medical Solutions

Rising Medical Solutions (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 independent reliable coverage to meet GNG /NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NCORP; basically, can only find newswires for this company Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:02, 7 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D animation software

List of 3D animation software (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)

Notability/usefulness not demonstrated. Just a list of licenses of softwares. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Software, and Lists. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list fails
WP:NLIST as we cannot say that the list deserves to exist per the article's first sentence, "this is a list of 3D animation apps that have articles on Wikipedia". Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [reply
]
Why did you link something that literally contradicts what you said? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that one out Why? I Ask! I think it should therefore be kept. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since more information is shown. It is useful if you want to see a list of all the software of this type, and be able to sort it by its type of license to find what you are looking for. Additional information could be added, a column showing what year it became available, another column listing if its still being developed and if not just list when the last update was, etc. Dream Focus 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The mere fact that all of these have a Wikipedia page makes it a valid list under
WP:LISTPURP. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Team Outer Banks

Team Outer Banks (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)

Ostensibly a team in a sailing competition, or possibly two unrelated teams of the same name. Not notable, no independent references, some of this is indistinguishable from vandalism.
Walsh90210 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Walsh90210 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 6 June 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 06:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEDA 1026855

LEDA 1026855 (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:NASTRO, isn't present on the NGC catalog or any other notable catalog, I couldn't find any information on the web either. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 05:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 05:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there seems to be nothing particularly notable about this galaxy. It only appears in a few surveys as a data entry. A single supernova candidate is insufficient these days. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.
talk) 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs)} 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArkHyena (talk) 21:16, 6 June 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 06:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Number 1's (video)

Number 1's (video) (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 meet GNG. Heartfox (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no additional coverage myself. Certs are the only part that meet NALBUM, but those could be added to a new section of Mariah Carey albums discography (which I'm surprised isn't already there). There is a one-sentence mention in Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)#Other songs; not enough that I would consider it a valid redirect target, especially since readers looking for this article will probably end up there anyway, but it's an option if anyone else wants to argue for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:58, 6 June 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. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (2nd nomination)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopaedic. Lorstaking (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article.
Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @
WP:NLIST.
The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Hungama TV#Animated series. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series)

Chacha Bhatija (TV series) (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 pass
talk) 04:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wide scope, popular TV series which needs work. Will do after afd closes

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 06:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Tim Metcalfe (musician)

Tim Metcalfe (musician) (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)

Self-authored Wikipedia about a non-notable musician. Half of the references on the page don't even mention him, and the ones that do only make a single passing mention of his involvement in some non-notable experimental indie band. The only substantial and reliable source I can find talking about him in any depth is this but, other than that, crickets. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability in the sources given; what I find are all related to Lufthaus, which I think involves the same person as this AfD. Redirect there might be fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 6 June 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 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Matching person and technology model

Matching person and technology model (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)

Notability and quality issues. The article was created by a single-purpose account in 2009. None of the content is sourced, the "general" references are generally about "assistive technology" or are by MJ Scherer, the creator of this model. Google Scholar has about 3 results not associated with Scherer, which use this as background.
None of the current content should be merged to
Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 6 June 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!} 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Abacus Life

Abacus Life (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 fail
talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotional spam, can't find any good sources BrigadierG (talk) 11:35, 6 June 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 Cardiff University#Schools and colleges where it's mentioned Star Mississippi 02:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff School of Engineering

Cardiff School of Engineering (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 school is particularly notable outside notability of university DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Engineering. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff University - Departments are almost never notable. BrigadierG (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff University per BrigadierG. I don't see much indepdendent of the school's website while searching. Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 13 June 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. I did not see much sourced material to merge, but I am happy to provide a copy of the deleted material if anybody (Gjs238) is interested in using it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Italian Syrians

Italian Syrians (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 isn’t really a topic here. Specifically there is nothing here to suggest that there is a current or recent community of Syrians of Italian heritage. The article discusses Romans of Syrian origins (off topic), then the arrival of Livorno Jews (should be merged into History of the Jews in Syria, and the rest is anecdote and a section copy-pasted from Italy–Syria relations to fill out the article and make it look like an actual topic. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Italy. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed a similar page, which is Italians in Lebanon, the name is different yes, but the page literally doesn’t define anything. Most sources aren’t accessible anymore and the source I can access is the Vinivest 2011? I know this isn’t the time to compare. But, what should the page by about if not Romans of Syrian descent and the history of both countries and the arrivals of the Italian Jews to Syria? I see no reason for all this, and suggest removing it. 2001:8F8:1473:5EF2:848C:A013:291F:7463 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge arrival of Livorno Jews into History of the Jews in Syria then Delete as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 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 Giovanni Pellegrino. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile

La guerra civile (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 article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.
Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is currently a redirect. Given the vagueness of the term, and the target page being a
~~WP:BLP, I support deleting this impractical, foreign language redirect.Dan the Animator 00:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply
]
It was not a redirect when I afd'd it: this was done out of process. I'll revert that.

It was a book he wrote. It is an acceptable redirect on that front, especially if the book is cited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! I redirected it, thinking it was a PROD not an Afd (:D) I read your rationale but didn't read the rest of the tag properly, and just BLARed it all. Sorry for that..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's all good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh got it, thanks! For the restored article, the only citation is to the book itself, which doesn't help establish the notability of the book. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect called "La guerra civile (book)". Given that the phrase "la guerra civile" can mean/refer to almost anything on the page Civil War, I'll leave to other editors to rule on the chance that a reader using this redirect would be thinking of the book and not some other meaning. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Giovanni Pellegrino would be a suitable ATD (but once this discussion is finished indeed).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Giovanni Pellegrino. The core topic is confused and SIGCOV could not be found. Jontesta (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company

Switch Music company (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. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?

I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."

I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maikel, if you know of reliable, independent, secondary sources that might establish notability, please mention them here before this discussion is closed. That is what editors are looking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources are one user thread and their catologue. I can find nothing at all via the standard searches. Nowhere good enough for
WP:promotion for the guitars (which are still very much available) though.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment there's a comment from an IP on the talk page for this AfD— Iadmc ♫^talk 04:50, 9 June 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!} 23:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chain

Mr. Chain (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)

Company fails
WP:NCORP. While several articles cited here provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, they are all in highly local publications (the Manistee News and the Traverse City Record-Eagle). Under NCORP, "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town)... is not an indication of notability." A BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets
WP:GNG. I think there should be more in newspaper archives - this company is very notable in its particular niche and most of the innovative things done by this company were in pre-internet era (it was founded in 1960). Nienders (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The
WP:BURDEN is on the editor proposing material to prove notability; can you supply the newspaper citations? I searched archive sites in my BEFORE search but I only found local media coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll also add that the appropriate criteria is
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - the local newspaper of
mundane coverage
. 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the Traverse City paper should be considered reliable and independent. But under
WP:AUD, that's not all that's required. Significant coverage in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I think the debate is whether the paper serving Traverse City (population 15,000) is "local media"; I think it is, which is why I nominated the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was all I can pull up [20], interesting bit of trivia, but not enough for NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 6 June 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 06:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational

Bermuda Smash Invitational (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 cricket tournament which fails
WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is what looks to be
WP:GNG on the tournament in media, although a lot of it from Bermudian related sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what Rugbyfan found to consider a "keep" vote. The highest to SIGCOV I can found is this. Other sources found in the article and google news are just about
WP:GNG. As AA mentioned, it's an unofficial minor league, so no reason to keep it. Robo^Cric Let's chat 12:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per Robocric's assessment. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 13 June 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 06:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jana Amin

Articles for deletion/Jana Amin (2nd nomination)

Jana Amin (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)

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Egypt, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with small potential
Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to judge the notability of activists by similar merits as I judge the notability of businesspeople, because there are similar incentives as it relates to coverage and they're both prone to PROMO for the same reasons. None of the coverage of this individual is
WP:INDEPENDENT. There is zero critical coverage of this individual, honestly most of these interviews if you changed some of the subject words could be straight off of someone's LinkedIn page. Profiles are not good evidence of notability because of their dependence and frequent aggrandisement of their subject. BrigadierG (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply I believe that at least Mirna Khaled Sayed's article in
WP:INDEPENDENT. That policy page does say "independence does not imply even-handedness". Jana was 17 at the time, and it's understandable that two newspapers reporting on an underage female activist might choose to be supportive, so unless we have evidence that Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia are both in the habit of running promotional pieces disguised as independent articles, I think we do have here one or two independent, albeit supportive, articles. It is possible that Jana's young age was part of her notability at the time; Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time so if someone was notable for being reported as a teenage activist then they are now notable for (at the very least) being formerly reported as a teenage activist even if their more recent activities as an adult activist were to fail notability. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Would it be possible for somebody to add a second opinion specifically on the two articles I mentioned? as currently I'm thinking people are saying "oh, nothing notable here" and not noticing those two. Thanks. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 18:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are mostly interviews or are otherwise primary, with a lack of
WP:TOOSOON for the subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJournalish

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

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "this journal is endorsed and ranked by the Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (as already cited). Why would that not demonstrate notability?" This apparently refers to current ref. 3, but that database (SINTA) does not appear to be very selective and therefore fails both NJournals and GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Indonesia. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indonesia publishes dozens of academic journals,[21] and for some reason the first one documented on Wikipedia gets PROD and AFD within days. Why is that? I can't see why the endorsement of the journal by the government would not establish notability. (See [22], the Director-General of Strengthening Research and Development, Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Decree Number 105/M/KPT/2022.) The journal has been published for less than four years, but has more than 300 incoming citations according to Google Scholar.[23] Does this not clearly meet C2 of
WP:JOURNALCRIT? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I'm sorry, but 300 citations is rather pathetic, even for a new journal. Also, it appears that every journal published in Indonesia gets into Sinta, so that is not really a ringing endorsement. C2 is most certainly not met. As for why this got PRODded and then taken to AfD: I patrol all new articles on academic journals and if they appear not to be notable, I propose them for deletion. Nothing nefarious here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't give a quantitative guideline, just that subjective one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

That's because different fields have different citation densities. But even n a low-citation density field is 300 citations after 4 years not very impressive and certainly not enough for C2.

Delete clear failure to meet anything in
b} 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete SINTA is not embraced by the government, it's just classification/accrediation system for Indonesian journals. Being indexed by SINTA is basically just meant "this journal exist" the same way school accrediation exist Nyanardsan (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I had to close this based on the discussion so far, it would be to delete. However, more discussion genuinely would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence for notability presented; fails both GNG/NJOURNALS Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Erasmus Student Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

Erasmus Student Network Armenia (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)

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Erasmus Student Network Yerevan into Erasmus Student Network. I can't find anything much other than social media or links to information and event involving the umbrella organisation in a search (including the sources in the article that I can read/translate), which suggests this is a local organisation not warranting it's own article. I note that none of the other national organisations have their own article, including ESN Russia and ESN UK, for example.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:46, 6 June 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.
talk) 13:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Yuri Lushchai

Articles for deletion/Yuri Lushchai (2nd nomination)

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)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author.
WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at
WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 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. It is possible with enough time there would be enough participation to come to a consensus, but this has already been relisted twice. Malinaccier (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supersci

Supersci (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)

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable group, going by available sources. Both with its current ("Supersci") and its former ("Superscientifiku") name, the group is mentioned on some Swedish websites, but with very few exceptions (e.g.
Talk 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Talk 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2007, their "Pinetrees On The Pavement" (the song or the album?) was nominated (did not win) at sv:Manifestgalan (cannot link or the link disappears, for some reason). Source at Göteborgs-Posten here, and at Manifestgalan here. I doubt it's enough for actual notability, but it's something. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, their "Timelines" was nominated (again, did not win) at the sv:P3 Guld. Example sources, at Sveriges Television here, and at Sveriges Radio P3 here. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added three different sources that provide significant coverage. The article meets
WP:NMUSIC. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Can’t check offline sources, but linked sources are not
WP:SIGCOV
.
1st source: Are only sayings of connected ones of the subject, no in-depth coverage of the subject.

4rth source: Nomination list of the award P3, I don’t know how much this award is notable.
Talk 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
1st source: I see what you mean, though the offline sources are more independent of the subject.
4th source: The nomination doesn't confer notability, but I thought it was worth mentioning since it was brought up in the AfD. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the third source (or at least an article about the same thing by the same author) online, so added it to the article if you want to take a look. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of added sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sources and added sources since nom shows notability at least per WP:NMUSIC at this time. I say Weak Keep. BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there remains a clear absence of consensus to delete. BD2412 T 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Campbell

Georgie Campbell (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:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Horse racing. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a
WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for
WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at
WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that
WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If this person is only notable for passing then they fail the notability test, unless proven otherwise.
talk to me) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I noticed the article about her husband, and put up an AfD for that as well. Posting here as this would've been bundled had I noticed them at the same time. Firestar464 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD nomination was a dumb move as her husband is clearly notable, and bundling the two bios would have thus been a very bad move indeed. Schwede 66 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article satisfies
WP:GNG. Not uncommon to gain information from obituaries. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I started this article on a distinguished equestrian. Strange to see that the article on her husband was also AfD. This page has been expanded on since I started it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get an evaluation of additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think there is enough here to satisfy
WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 6 June 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.
talk) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Freddrick Jackson

Freddrick Jackson (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)

WP:NOTNEWS - I can't see that there's likely to be unusual or lasting coverage regarding this murderer. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOTNEWS, killing four people isn't terribly notable in the US. Some coverage, but it's simply retelling the facts of a crime. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable due to his young age at the time of his crimes not the victim count as he has to be the youngest serial killer in Arkansas history. Startrain844 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And NONE of the sources use the term "serial killer", nor can I find mention of this anywhere. I wonder if this is OR or some wishful thinking... Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a serial killer because he committed the murders of three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.^[1]^[2]Startrain844 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's original research; you can't create an article using that term when no one else has called him that. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of serial killers on Wikipedia had no lasting coverage on news. Startrain844 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate any other articles that don't meet guidelines here. Again, they are serial killers as the media addresses them as such; this individual hasn't been called that in media. He's just another criminal, CRIME notability applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Murdered four people on different days over two years. Plenty of coverage. Meets
WP:GNG. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Yes, how dare we "shame and degrade" a convicted multiple murderer by calling him a serial killer (which is much, much worse than being a multiple murderer, apparently)! Poor little chap! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is clearly significant coverage, and I see no reason to ignore the GNG. Sourcing across three years assuages concerns about NOTNEWS for me. (I also think the designation of "serial killer" is acceptable per
WP:BLUESKY. He meets the scholarly definition of a serial killer, so he is a serial killer.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

References

Britannica
. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
^ an offender can be anyone.
Holmes & Holmes 1998, Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.

Petherick 2005, p. 190 Three killings seem to be required in the most popular definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.

Flowers 2012, p. 195 in general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.

Schechter 2012, p. 73 Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sea Derby

Red Sea Derby (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 doesn't seem to be a notable football rivalry. The references are generally about the country's relations, not football.
Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Nothing in the article or a Google search does anything to establish these teams as rivalries. All discuss relations between the two countries (unrelated to football), or
WP:ROUTINE coverage of the two football teams. Frank Anchor 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:OR? Govvy (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Some people just love making up these rivalries and giving them names. I nominated for deletion the alleged rivalry between Portugal and France, which somebody gave the flowery nickname "Battle of the Vineyards" but couldn't put the same amount of effort into proving it existed, apart from showing evidence that the two countries played against each other. I was even chastised for using offensive language just for suggesting that not every pairing of international teams is a rivalry. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:SYNTH. This is like saying because relations between the USA and China/Russia are inflamed, they have a football rivalry. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – Per Unknown Temptation explanation. Svartner (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a "hyped-up" routine match with little evidence of notability. Much of the article's content is irrelevant to football. Haruka Amaranth 14:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a failure of
WP:NRIVALRY because of a lack of in-depth coverage in RS. The sources either don't mention a rivalry or do so only outside of football. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 13 June 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 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Durie Kallahal

Durie Kallahal (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 does not have notability, according to
WP:GNG notability either. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few
sources out there. Nothing of note to raise the notability to WP requirements either. A municipal government figure would need much more to have an article to themself.— Iadmc ♫^talk 02:54, 6 June 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_June_6&oldid=1228964275"

[1] Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[2] Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[3] Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.

[2]

[3]

Faldi00

talk

01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

reply

[1]

[2]