Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 02 March 04 >

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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Kieran Woolley

Kieran Woolley (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 Joeykai (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. the article doesn't do much to establish notability beyond simply being an Olympic athlete but the search linked by Geschichte shows enough coverage in international media to make a strong case for the GNG being met. See especially [2] [3] and [4]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The article can be restored if an editor comes forward with an argument that the subject meets the

GNG. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Elizabeth Moran (scientist)

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

I don't think the subject meets

WP: N. The current sources do not establish notability. They either contain substantial content from the subject herself or don't contain substantial coverage. Here is an archived version of the leading scientists link that's currently broken in the article. I couldn't find any source other than this one that could possibly be used. However, I couldn't find credentials of the journalist that wrote this, and the article mostly contains quotations from the subject anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. I am not seeing evidence of meeting NPROF, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of IRS SIGCOV to suggest she meets GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any possibility of a pass of
    WP:GNG. I was hoping the "175 faces" source would provide significant depth of coverage of her, and was preparing to go with a weak delete on that basis (because it's only one and we need multiple in-depth sources). But that source turns out to be an interview without much depth, so I don't think it counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete and
    she is right on the cusp of notability. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 22:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Kumanovo-Lipkovo offensive

Kumanovo-Lipkovo offensive (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)

Hello. This article offers nothing unique beyond what the articles

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, the page has almost no information and only few sources. It’s unnecessary just like the Karadak front. And the creator of this article has recently been noticed for unnecessary edits and incorrect information Daddyson11111 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seconding, since I see no persuasive reason to keep it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 22:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Chab chab

Chab chab (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 unnotable. Has minimal notability and has hardly any reliable sources about it. I've searched the internet for any documentation of this and all I've found were blogs, untrustworthy sites, etc. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find nothing on google, google scholar, or my university library for "chab chab". A search for "Chab chab" Tibet has satisfied me that "chab" is a Tibetan word, but that's as far as I get without going really deep into search results. I don't see any examples at Tibetan culture#Clothing either. There's a sentence at that article that appears to have been written by someone trying to de-orphan Chab chab; it doesn't really fit with the rest. Since we don't have any good sources for it I think we should remove that line and delete this article. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mabuhay Channel

The Mabuhay Channel (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 can't find any siginficant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. PROD was contested claiming that notability, which the subject lacks, is not temporary. Israel's Son 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon JournalisMO

AfDs for this article:
Aksyon JournalisMO (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

WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Note we also have a related article on later
Pilipinas News, notability similarity unknown. IgelRM (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Marks

Jon Marks (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)

Uncited for over a decade, cannot find any sources for him (not someone else with the same name). Mach61 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per
    WP:NBAND. I see some improvement, but as usual, I would prefer for all external links to be placed into in-line citations. Based on his international touring, he appears to be a notable musician under criteria #1 and # 4. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft redirect‎ to Wikt:ambisexual. Star Mississippi 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambisexual

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

per

soft redirecting to wikt:ambisexual --MikutoH talk! 23:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

redirect to wikt:ambisexual and Delete per nom. Tdmurlock (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Second Gyeongin Expressway. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Gyeongin Expressway tunnel fire

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

All the coverage I found is from December 2022. No

WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It looks like it was created right after the fire when there was coverage in the anglosphere and then nothing else. I was able to find an English source from March 2023 about suspects being refered to prosecutors and Korean sources about scentencing in September 2023. There's also two from October 2023 which seem to be refering to the same thing but have different casualty numbers (although that might just be a translation error). There an article from February 2023 looking back at the fire, and March 2023 about it reopening and the material used that contributed to the fire. As well as July 2023 about another city replacing all their soundproof tunnels becasue of the now identified risks.

    It's probably the case that it should be mentioned in/moved to another an article about that, but I think it needs a Korean speaker to look thorugh sources before deleting. And also someone who's more familiar with Korean news sources too, one of the ones I had picked up (bnnbreaking) on were noted as unreliable although there's nothing on the others. Shaws username . talk . 00:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of continued sigcov for months afterwards in the Korean language, but I could entertain a merge to Second Gyeongin Expressway. The coverage is often of the outcome of the event, particularly the investigations and legal trials.
[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Anecdotal, but this was pretty big news in South Korea at the time and is still mentioned on TV every now and then. Pretty horrifying event.
talk) 22:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You can google the phrase "제2경인고속도로 갈현고가교 화재" and switch to news; coverage is across hundreds of articles and comes from like every major South Korean newspaper and continues for months afterwards, even into late 2023.
talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Interestingly the Bahasa Indonesia article is the most developed here, but I think this passes
    WP:LASTING. It does need to be significantly expanded, though, and if someone looks at this again after awhile and it hasn't been, I may be willing to concede I was wrong... (edit: on that note, perhaps this is a valid article title, but should be merged until we can split it.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Orange Jackets

Orange Jackets (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 continue pruning this highly promotional article on a non-notable organization, but really AfD is the way to go. The only coverage there is concerns passing mentions of people who joined the club. The big claim to fame was based on this article--but you'll have to scroll down a long way to get to the news item where they are mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I cannot find any independent sources on this org, but it is possible that there may have been some in old-timey traditional media if anyone can locate. As it currently stands, the sources are all primary or a passing mention. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HousingAnywhere

AfDs for this article:
HousingAnywhere (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 was last deleted at AfD in 2017 and has since been recreated twice (the other recreation having been deleted per

WP:G5
back in 2019).

I think that the reasoning from the last AfD still applies to the current version of the article, namely that the coverage is routine coverage and does not meet

WP:CORPDEPTH. GTrang (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep‎.

(non-admin closure) GTrang (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Yoruba people in the Atlantic slave trade

Yoruba people in the Atlantic slave trade (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)

Its nonsensical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznaw (talk • contribs)

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.

Characters of the Kirby series

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn‎ Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Kirby 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)

While I love Kirby, the series gets practically no discussion on its characters anywhere. Outside of the main trio of Kirby, Dedede, and Meta Knight, the rest of cast receives barely any coverage. The characters as a whole receive no coverage, either. The characters as a whole don't seem to meet notability, and not even an argument equivalent to NLIST can be made, as Kirby is the only character from the series with an article. More minor recurring characters can logically be discussed in brief in the series article's "Characters" section, while characters who are really only primarily associated with one game can logically be redirected there. I hate having to play devil's advocate with this article, but unless some massive character-focused Kirby renaissance comes around, I doubt this article will ever meet notability thresholds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus that this is a cricket tournament. However, there is general consensus that the topic meets

(non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Indian Street Premier League

Indian Street Premier League (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'. Besides being played with tennis balls (???), it fails

Notability isn't inherient simply because someone famous backs it. If Tendulkar backed the local donkey derby, it still wouldn't be notable. AA (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Sounds like a case of
I don't like it. The GNG applies project-wide. The event has achieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the sources presented here would be more helpful than debating which cricket guideline is the most relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it seems to me that the issue regarding the ICC official definition of cricket isn't relevant because Other Types of Cricket Exist. We have
    WP:TOOSOON argument but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff. It seems like even if it was decided that the GNG wasn't met that moving to draft would at least give the opportunity to see if it was more than a brief flash-in-the-pan. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff" - that sounds a bit like
WP:GEOBIAS... AusLondonder (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rothstein

Debbie Rothstein (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 person does not meet

WP:ENT. signed, SpringProof talk 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Possible Merge can be discussed on article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico Meyer

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

As the article creator, I'm not sure there's enough content out there for an article on this individual, so am proposing deletion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. GnocchiFan, have you tried Portuguese-language sources like [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc.? You probably can even find free-license photographs of him on Flickr to illustrate the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the articles, I appreciate it! I've expanded using the Portuguese sources and added an image as you said - if I could withdraw this deletion nomination I would do. Very much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:NACD. Shadow311 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati

AfDs for this article:
Raquel Evita Saraswati (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 mostly developed from coverage focused on

WP:NOT policies, which encourage higher-quality and more sustained coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The claim that Saraswati lied about her ethic identity comes from a single source. An estranged family member of low character. All other claims about her ethnicity are a direct result that one article and that one source. The article provided, contains Saraswati's official response to the accusations and includes a statement from a board certified dermatologist - Dr. Jayne Bird of Philadelphia - who she has been seeing for at least six years. The dermatologist confirmed the results from "three independent and extensive DNA tests" and the validity of Saraswati's identity as a woman of color.
"Raquel has been my regular patient since 2018. As a dermatologist, I classify her skin type as Fitzpatrick Skin Type 4, meaning she has light brown/olive skin color. Natural skin color is determined by genetics and skin type often represents a blend of ethnicities. Her DNA includes the following ethnicities, among others: North African (close to 40%), West Asian, Greek and South Italian (these two are grouped as one category representing approximately 6% of Raquel's DNA). Low amounts (<5%) of Nigerian and other ethnicities are also present. Based on this genetic testing and my observations, it is clearly established that she is skin type 4 and skin of color." - Dr. Bird.
The article is valid. Warriorcitizen5150 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first four hits in Gnews are from different sources, and to be honest, being one race or another doesn't get you notability here. We need more about her other activities, that we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if we pull out anything racial, what do we have left? Confirmation that a woman worked as an activist. There is not extensive coverage about her "activism", so she doesn't meet notability requirements here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources about her (the phillymag source in the article is an interview) from before she resigned, which definitely appears as a
    WP:BLP1E
    to me. I think it's fair to say that #1 and #2 are met, but I'm more mixed on #3. Although since the coverage of it, aside from a press release by her, had stopped after March 2023 I'm inclined to say that's met too.
Also to note the first two AfDs in 2006 and 2013 were to delete, the third in 2023 was a speedy keep as there was no deletion rationale. Shaws username . talk . 23:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free League Publishing

Free League Publishing (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:NCORP, article is a list games published. Maybe a List of Free League Publishing would be applicable? IgelRM (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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


The result was no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion (and discounting the precocious IP), there is no clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Pandey

Deanne Pandey (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, running mentions,

WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Odd that they're intimately familiar with wiki policies but edit while logged out. Would be helpful if they were logged in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per @User4edits and @Oaktree b. unable to see in-depth SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per
    WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as DNA, HT, Midday etc. as pointed out above by anon. Almost all of these sources provide in-depth coverage of her and her work. GSS 💬 07:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

  • Delete. I've looked through all the provided and applied sources, and I think this is a very marginal case. IMHO, there's simply not enough direct detailing to support anything more than the single sentence in the article. It seems the template for all of these articles is usage of the minimum of text and the maximum of images of the subject. Routine entertainment news. This is a BLP. At this point, we don't meet that high bar for sourcing. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're suggesting that this (300+ words article) by
WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, this interview, among other, can be used to expand the article. GSS 💬 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have expanded the article and cited some more sources. GSS 💬 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and a large-scale content expansion by GSS. She is a "national bestselling" author, Apart from that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that make her pass BASIC & GNG. Note: I am the creator of the article.- FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I hope these sources find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Davies

J. D. Davies (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 reliable sources in the article or anywhere else. Fails

Bolt and Thunder (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, my brief web search established sufficient notability, although the article needs work. There are already reliable sources:
The publication of an academic book by the Oxford University Press supports his academic credentials, and the
Samuel Pepys award appears to be prestigious in his field. The Amazon profile indicates other awards,[24]
although this may be self-published and would need verification. It refers to a mention in The Times: we should find and assess this.
It is difficult to search for him on the web because he has a common name. I found several academic reviews of "J. D. Davies Gentlemen and Tarpaulins" (they are paywalled, so I have not read the content).
It is clear that he is an academic historian and also writes fiction books. The books I have looked at do not appear to be self-published. I have not fully established
WP:NACADEMIC
, but he may qualify for:
1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Verbcatcher (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have identified Times coverage via a Proquest search ([29],[30]) and added the citation to the article. Due to the paywall I can't see the extent of the review, just the teasing search snippet "wears his knowledge lightly. Death's Bright Angel is the sixth book in a series......Bright Angel by JD Davies Old Stre" but this does confirms the mention referenced by Verbcatcher above. As a result, with the award and other coverage it's becoming reasonable to presume notability. ResonantDistortion 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep The books he wrote have multiple reviews, which would pass NBOOK, but are better covered here than spun out as individual articles. I find the OUP argument above compelling--not just anyone gets them to publish an academic book--as well as the award. While he may not pass NPROF, I believe he meets NAUTHOR 3 and/or 4, and ANYBIO. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Day & Meyer, Murray & Young

Day & Meyer, Murray & Young (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 seem to meet

WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redmi 13C

Redmi 13C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also directly violates the SNG by creating separate articles for each product of a company. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redmi 11 Prime

Redmi 11 Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also directly violates the SNG by creating separate articles for each product of a company. Also reads like an advertisement product catalog page reflecting lack of independent coverage. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus seems to be that any existing problems with this article can be remedied through editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing (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 not good:

This seems like it would require a total rewrite. I'd rather remove it and improve Fossil fuel subsidies / Price of oil with the data from this page. Киан (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is usually a big topic in US politics so I'm not surprised it's US biased, but as per the above that's not really a good reason to delete an article. Swordman97 talk to me 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just as big an issue in the rest of the world. If this article is US biased the reason is the same as for other articles: that the majority of editors of the English Wikipedia are American.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator due to a significant modification and improvement of the article per

(non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of 2024 gaming industry layoffs

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's no other "list of layoffs" on Wikipedia as far as I know, and it seems to run afoul of

WP:SYNTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

While it's true that there might not be another specific "list of layoffs" on Wikipedia, it doesn't necessarily mean that creating such a list runs afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines. The existence of similar lists or lack thereof doesn't determine the validity of a new list. Furthermore, the argument citing WP:NOTDATABASE is not entirely applicable here. Wikipedia allows lists when they serve an encyclopedic purpose and provide valuable information to readers. A list of notable layoffs in the gaming industry could indeed serve this purpose by documenting significant events within the industry, providing historical context, and highlighting trends in employment practices.
Regarding the notability criteria, it's important to recognize that significant layoffs within the gaming industry can have wide-ranging implications beyond just the companies directly involved. They can impact the industry's economy, employment landscape, and even consumer sentiment. Therefore, documenting these events in a list format could help provide a comprehensive view of the industry's dynamics over time. While it may be challenging to distinguish between typical turnover and major firings, proper sourcing and citation practices can help ensure that the information presented is accurate and verifiable, thus mitigating concerns about original synthesis (WP:SYNTH). By citing reputable sources and providing context for each entry on the list, editors can ensure that the information meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and neutrality.
Creating a list of notable layoffs in the gaming industry can be justified as long as it serves an encyclopedic purpose, is properly sourced, and provides valuable insights for readers interested in the industry's history and developments. Ryan York (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the work already done, and expand prose. The list is fine to keep in the improved article as an appendix; the data has context. It is not a list of exhaustive or unexplained statistics, which is what
WP:NOTDATABASE is intended to prevent. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for providing the feedback. It's greatly appreciated. I acknowledge your input and will make the necessary improvements to enhance the quality of the article. Ryan York (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on this, but note that as a potentially long-term trend, thought should be given to how the time-specific framing of this article may need to change in future. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have significantly restructured the article and changed the name to '
2024 video game industry layoffs' to make it clear. Ryan York (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Impressive. You could probably nominate for GA once the dust settles on the on-going layoffs. Nice job. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Ryan York (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the article has been resurrected very well. Wariorio10 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jimenez (Belizean footballer)

Daniel Jimenez (Belizean footballer) (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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromy James

Jeromy James (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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Nassau County Sports Hall of Fame

Nassau County Sports Hall of Fame (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 page is a non-notable award given by an

WP:ORGTRIV and don't seem to discuss the award in any detail (i.e. just acknowledging it exists and someone got given it). Furthermore, this article is just an indiscriminate list of people who got the award. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 16:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist (UK)

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

Non-notable publication, no independent reliable sources. This page was created earlier and then made a redirect to

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) or The Communist (which is a disambiguation page). Wellington Bay (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Was uncontroversially turned into a redirect due to lack of notability outside of the group that publishes it, seems to have been restored under false claims of "vandalism". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gievenbach

Gievenbach (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)

Very limited refs on the page for many years - just a mention in a government list. Nothing much to suggest a 4km small stream meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

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

Comments supporting this article were made by sockpuppets of the article creator. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy

Nano Nuclear Energy (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 press releases / GlobeNewswire. See Jay Jiang Yu as well. TLA (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Researching on the topic, Nano Nuclear Energy is dedicated to the development and supply of advanced nuclear microreactor technology. According to references, these microreactors are nuclear systems designed to provide clean energy. These are the references I just researched. https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/future-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/ODIN. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/idaho-national-laboratory-completes-pre-140000335.html.
Scientific equipment:
I was researching about the scientific advisors and nuclear engineering experts in said organization and this reference showed me the scientists who play in the strategic orientation and technological development of the company. https://nanonuclearenergy.com/nuclear-technical-team/ @I'm tla Kendry Antonio (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:@

High Assay Low Enriched Uranium). Eugenio Montilla (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

information Note: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EliteBrandRealm. TLA (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Entirely sourced to press releases. [32] is also a "contributor piece", paid advertising. Nothing in RS that isn't a paid piece. Delete for any sort of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Rochdale by-election as a minimally contentious ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Tully

David Tully (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)


ten year test for enduring significance.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins a future election to a notable office or accomplishes something else that would pass another notability criterion, but coming in second in a by-election is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nominator's arguments and other delete voters. Tehonk (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
talk) 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Some people here are making statements as if they apply on every occasion when this is not the case but, as ever, it requires consideration of the *context*.
It is said "non-winning candidates get articles *only* [my emphasis] if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway." This cannot be true because it would mean that no matter what a non-winning candidate went on to do and no matter how notable they then became, they would *never* get an article unless they had notability for an article from the start before they failed to win the vote.
It's said "coming in second isn't notable". However, this is also not a complete 'this means it isn't notable'. Instead, it is that coming in second is not *normally* notable. However, this wasn't a normal by-election. Instead it had unique circumstances in which one of the main parties expected easily to win had had to withdraw support for the candidate that continued to appear with the party name on the ballot and this left the race unpredictable. Support for the two biggest parties of national politics collapsed and indeed voters couldn't really vote for one of them. For no mainstream parties to feature in the top two candidates in a result is highly unusual. This gives Mr Tully, as one of them, some notability.
However, the coverage so far is not much above the single event. Nonetheless, he has been mentioned today by the winning MP, whose notoriety is enough that he is likely to get significant media coverage for some time to come, and Mr Tully now features as referred to by Mr Galloway in a politically controversial dispute between the Prime Minister's statement on Friday (1st March) and Mr Galloway's statement this afternoon (4th March). Depending on whether Mr Galloway continues to use not just the votes he has got but also the votes given to Mr Tully in saying both of them have roundly beaten Mr Sunak's party, Mr Tully's achievement, even in not winning the election but in getting nearly twice as many votes as the governing party, may yet continue to make him of notoriety.
We don't know how much, if at all, Mr Galloway is going to continue to refer to him yet and what impact his statements may have. It is too early to say that Mr Tully has lost notability after surfacing from obscurity - is this going to be a brief appearance before obscurity again or is his achievement going to persist in political debates in Parliament that may well get more attention due to involving Mr Galloway? We expect Mr Galloway's tenure as an MP to be brief and for the Labour Party to win the replacement seat at the general election.
Nonetheless, these next months before whenever the general election comes may well have Mr Tully repeatedly referenced by Galloway and could see him have long-lasting notoriety to be remembered for decades, even if we are not there yet. He is clearly known in Rochdale due to his repair business. However, I do not consider that this alone gives him an article as it clearly didn't before he surfaced with the success in the election, which is the beating of the Conservative governing party into third place not his coming second (which is the failure to win the seat).
Nonetheless, maybe off-topic I don't know, there is an article for Willy's Chocolate Experience but how notorious is this really as a single event that, in the grand scheme, is much more likely to fade away and not occur again whilst Mr Tully does have potential for his achievement to continue known beyond one event in a single year? People are seeing the immediate, in which it is also difficult right now to judge what is going to happen with Mr Tully, rather than looking at whether this is a long-lasting article on Wikipedia in decades to come. It is difficult to know whether some events in our immediate are likely to gain historical impact for future generations. aspaa (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources. Someone is not notable because they are mentioned in the media by another person, and we don't keep articles just because somebody may become notable. Regarding the fact that Willy's Chocolate Experience has an article, we don't base deletion decisions on other articles existing because there's no guarantee that the example you've provided is also notable enough to have an article, and this discussion is about this article, not that one. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Very true, and lets just keep in mind the uniqueness of the Rochdale by-election, given it ended with a Workers Party 1st place and 2nd place independent. The fact Tully came before both Labour and the Conservatives, even in the fraught conditions both parties are currently in, can't be said to be unworkable and worthy of recognition. Le0nidasOfCorinth (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely worthy of mentioning on the article about the by-election, but it doesn't mean he's eligible for his own article. Just finishing second is not enough to get someone over the bar of being notable just because they were a candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chupke Se Bahar Ajaye

AfDs for this article:
Chupke Se Bahar Ajaye (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

WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon Tavern

Honeymoon Tavern (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

WP:GNG
.

PROD removed with comment, "Kim Hee-sun is in this show!", but notability isn't inherited.

WP:NOTINHERITED DonaldD23 talk to me 14:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    .
    1. Lee, Gyu-lee (2021-08-17). "Star-studded 'Honeymoon Tavern' hits new lowest rating". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes: "TvN's variety show "Honeymoon Tavern" is failing to win over viewers' hearts with its cliche-ridden concept, despite its star-studded cast that includes actors Kim Hee-sun, Teo Yoo and K-pop star Kai. ... Whereas in "Honeymoon Tavern," the cast make up the menu to serve the guest as they go, and come up with activities or features to add to their inn on the spot, which gives a ragtag feel to the inn. Despite their skills in managing the inn, the show could still make itself interesting with the cast members having fun and interacting with each other and with guests. But their chemistry seems to be just starting to kick in."

    2. Lee, Hye-ri 이혜리 기자 (2021-08-10). "화려한 캐스팅도 안 통한다…'우도주막'·'바라던 바다' 부진한 이유" [Even fancy casting doesn't work… The reason why 'Honeymoon Tavern' and 'Sea of Hope' performed poorly]. EToday [ko] (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "'Honeymoon Tavern' casts singer Tak Jae-hoon, actor Yoo Tae-oh, EXO member Kai, and comedian Moon Se-yoon, who appeared in his first regular entertainment show, with actor Kim Hee-sun as the centerpiece. The purpose of the program is to invite newlyweds and provide them with everything from dinner to a late-night main meal and to have a happy day. It started with the goal of “delivering empathy and laughter to viewers about the happy memories made by the cast and newlyweds,” but many are of the opinion that this is not shown in a significant way in the broadcast. In addition to the special synergy between the cast and the newlyweds, there is no special chemistry found among the cast. Although they each work hard at their jobs, it is disappointing that they are shown on screen working separately rather than merging as one."

    3. Choi, Young-gyun 최영균 (2021-08-10). "'우도주막', 술이나 권하라고 김희선을 주모로 모신 건가" ['Honeymoon Tavern', did they invite Kim Hee-sun as the main host to offer them drinks?]. 엔터미디어 [EnterMedia] (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "It seems that one of the reasons for the slow start of is that the regular cast disappears to other schedules as soon as it starts. Moon Se-yoon and Kai appeared in episode 1 and then went to Seoul for work, and actor Ryu Deok-hwan took their place. As a result, Ryu Deok-hwan repeats the same mistakes made by Moon Shae-yoon and Kai in organizing the guest room. Growth is very important for this type of self-employed entertainment. At first, it's fun to see mistakes made, but viewers become engrossed in the process of growing up. However, as mistakes are repeated among the performers, growth remains stagnant, which has a negative impact on this type of entertainment."

    4. Jo, Ji-young 조지영 (2021-07-26). "'우도주막' 오픈 이래 최대 위기→영업 3일 차 업그레이드 된 활약기 예고" [The biggest crisis since the opening of 'Honeymoon Tavern' → Notice of upgraded activity on the 3rd day of business]. The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In the 3rd episode of 'Honeymoon Tavern', which airs at 10:30 pm today (26th), the members are doing their best to operate despite the inclement weather on the 3rd day of business, but are in an emergency situation due to unexpected bad weather. ... Meanwhile, 'Honeymoon Tavern' is a healing program that provides warm laughter and empathy through a tavern run by Kim Hee-sun, Tak Jae-hoon, Yoo Tae-oh, Moon Se-yoon, and Kai in collaboration for a special night for newlyweds."

    5. Lee, Jeong-hyeon (2021-06-17). "김희선, 신혼부부 위한 주막 오픈…tvN '우도주막'" [Kim Hee-sun opens a tavern for newlyweds...tvN 'Honeymoon Tavern'] (in Korean). Yonhap News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "'Honeymoon Tavern' is about celebrities setting up a tavern in Udo and inviting newlyweds who had difficulty getting married due to the novel coronavirus infection (Corona 19) to give them a happy day."

    There is sufficient coverage in
    reliable sources to allow Honeymoon Tavern (Hangul: 우도 주막; RR: Udo Jumag) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

The result was keep‎. The overall sense of this discussion is that the subject does meet

speedy deletion, and it is ECP as a contentious topic. I did afford less weight to arguments that the subject has a page on another language version of Wikipedia as projects are free to adopt independent definitions of notability, but even so, there is consensus to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Anat Schwartz

Anat Schwartz (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:MILL individual who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I see that the nominator has
WP:NEGATIVESPIN but at least some versions of this page are not a deliberate attack against the article subject. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I raised
WP:ATTACK on another page so yes, that is correct, I think it falls within the four corners of that policy. I think the fact that the essence of her reporting was just confirmed today by the UN makes my concerns even more magnified than previous. So thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it falls within the four corners of that policy Nonsense. And the UN report has nothing to do with it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a fundamental misreading of
WP:ATTACK. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore if this page were to be nominated for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}, I'm nearly 100% confident that would fail under any version in the revision history. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strong pass of
    WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event".—Alalch E. 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Essential to understanding the misinformation that has spread during the Israel-Hamas war. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Especially while the story is playing out. This is raising issues about the credibility of several organizations, including the New York Times and at least two espionage organizations, often referred to as "intelligence" organizations, implying it's intelligent to keep secrets and provide war propaganda. Although if another article, as someone suggested, is created a merge is worth considering. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Nableezy and others. Would support Sameboat's proposal for an article about the Screams Without Words controversy and then merge proposal as suggested by Zacherystaylor. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was referring to Sameboat's suggestion, for what it's worth, but it's still worth consideration. I'm not aware that such an article has been created. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: I also support creating an article on "Screams Without Words", to which Anat Schwartz can subsequently be merged. The comment I wrote on the talk page : I would personally lean towards moving Anat Schwartz to a ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7 article. I agree that Schwartz isn't notable outside of her article, of which she isn't even the sole author. News coverage related to the NYT article, besides "Between the Hammer and the Anvil", doesn't really focus on Schwartz anyway, but I think that that coverage is becoming significant enough (The Intercept, CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, op-eds in The Nation and Jacobin, etc.) to warrant an article. I don't see why it would fail WP:SUSTAINED because A) the article in and of itself has had a big impact on public discourse since its publication, B) the controversial aspect of the article also dates to at least January (the "Daily" episode) and has had at least another development (Schwartz's Twitter likes) even before the recent Intercept article, and C) the Intercept story has already snowballed into another story, with the leak investigation by the NYT and related allegations of racial profiling. WikiFouf (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per
    talk) 07:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: per WP:JOURNALIST, Anat Schwartz does not pass the notability bar for journalists. Actually, below WP:JOURNALIST bar by a substantial margin:
  1. Anat Schwartz is a junior journalist. As the article shows, she started working as a journalist for the NYT on 2023 - too junior to be an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. Anat Schwartz is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Even the NYT article provides an angle shared by many other journalists and journals.
  3. Anat Schwartz did not create a significant or well-known work or collective body of work - no Pulitzer award or any other significant journalist achievement.
  4. Her work never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GidiD (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if you combine the Delete voters arguments above, way above, and below, her work is claimed to have not won significant critical attention, but also this is an ATTACK page and has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. You can't have it both ways, in totality the arguments are contradictory. starship.paint (RUN) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not have to be a senior journalist or a good journalist to be a journalist or to or only or predominantly be a journalist to be subjectable to
      WP:NJOURNALIST. The "junior journalist" argument is special pleading. Anat Schwartz is indeed not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and her work has indeed never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. But it has (c) won significant critical attention. Because she did create a significant or well-known work. A work that was the primary subject of coverage in various other works. The NYT article is a significant and well-known work, and it received widespread attention and highly substantive critique. If we were to construe "significant" to be limited to "good works", "celebrated works", "Pulitzer-prize-winning works", that would not be good. It would be systemically non-neutral. It is not about awarding someone an article for their good work, about giving them recognition on the grounds of their praiseworthy journalistic work, it's not about celebrating good things, it's about having an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers equally the good, the bad, and the in-between. —Alalch E. 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
This response doesn't relate so much to my opinion, set aside one central piece of it that it is spot on: We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies. I'll try to refer to the rest, have given it some thought, just not very related to my points. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article created via Hebrew WP so arguably notable even prior to the latest developments on the notability front, easy GNG pass and the NYT story is already sustained.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that the subject's reporting was confirmed today by the United Nations, therefore effectively discrediting the thrust of this article (i.e. the effort to discredit her work) my concerns about this article are magnified. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235824305/israel-sexual-assault-rape-hamas-attack-un-report This article serves no useful purpose but to focus attention on a fringe theory of the Oct. 7 attacks, namely that the widely reported, indeed, self-reported (by the rapists) sexual violence in Israel did not take place. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has always been about which things are fact and which are allegation, the UN report will help in that regard. It certainly did not confirm the subject's reporting over which there is and will remain controversy. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but how is this relevant to the discussion about whether or not to keep the article? The existence of an article about the subject is not intended to discredit her work. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the actual report. Go to 55 and 86. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting... The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate and information gathered by the mission team was in large part sourced to Israeli national institutions. starship.paint (RUN) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is mentioned in the NYT corporate page, it's under the first instance of Israel with a hyperlink. The Polk page doesn't mention any specific articles, instead it says "for unsurpassed coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas. Times reporters used firsthand accounts to demonstrate how brutal and well planned the Hamas attack was and how vulnerable and ill prepared Israel had been to defend itself despite access to a 40-page Hamas battle plan."[34] Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a single event biography. Already existed on Hebrew wiki for past activities, and now exceptionally notable for the notorious NYT piece.
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Jordanova

Irena Jordanova (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 topic does not meet

WP:GNG
criteria. See source analysis table.

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
"Нова книга: "Послушен брод што плови" на Јорданова – Вечер". www.vecer.press. Archived from the original on 2018-07-25. ~ Slavica Gadzova Sviderska is quoted as the editorial reviewer, her commentary is not independent work of literary criticism and could simply be the blurb ~ contains promotional statements including: "one of the most downloaded novels on Amazon" which is, of course, ridiculous No
WP:ROUTINE
book announcement 		✘ No
Макфакс (2018-07-20). "Објавен третиот роман на Ирена Јорданова". МАКФАКС (in Macedonian). Archived from the original on 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2023-03-10. ~ same as previous, with a longer quote of the non-independent, editorial, review ~ same as previous, with extended promotional content No
WP:ROUTINE
book announcement 		✘ No
~ The subject's story was published in the blesok.mk publication, leading to her short profile being included on the organization's website ? the biographical summary was probably supplied by the subject No short author biography on a publisher's website is not significant coverage ✘ No
Utrinski Vesnik Archived 2012-03-26 at the Wayback Machine
- Novel of the Year Award, 2008 Archived 2011-07-22 at the Wayback Machine 		No this is the publication Utrinski vesnik writing about the literary award given by Utrinski vesnik; moreover Irena Jordanova was an employee for Utrinski vesnik as a journalist at some point[1] ~ there are some pretty vapid statements here that don't resemble serious literary criticism ("Irena Jordanova heralds the arrival of a top-notch writer of literary prose in Macedonian literature, who will not be somewhere between one and the other, but will be among the best") No these are two articles about the same award, and Jordanova or her book are not discussed in any depth or specificity; note that Jordanova is mentioned as a competition entrant and did not win the award ✘ No
"The International Association of the Biennial of Young Artists from Europe". Archived from the original on 2011-08-24. Retrieved 2011-04-15. No profile of a participant at a literary event on that event's website; the book description was probably provided by the subject or the domestic organizers who selected her for participation in the international event No the unsigned description of the book can not be seen as a credible critique No a directory entry with a short book description ✘ No
https://iliili.com.mk/knigi/katalizator-33/ No bood ad on the publisher's website ~ promotional content, but the statement that the English-language version is self-published is credible No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

WP:BEFORE
does not reveal any further usable sources.

  • It may be of interest to participants (but should not be seen as determinative with respect to deleting or keeping, and is not the movativator behind this AfD) that this article owes its existence to an old Macedonian book promotion initiative which was recently discussed at ANI.

References

  1. ^
—Alalch E. 14:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senet Inc.

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

This is a company therefore GNG/

HighKing++ 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

These are all churnalism. Look at the dates and what they discuss. It is routine coverage of an acquisition that was sparked by a press release and then reprinted in blogs or industry publications. Doesn't come close to [{WP:ORGCRIT]]. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Racer (video game)

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources besides the Bleeding Cool and Nintendo Life pieces given in the article, and not including the restatement of official material, both are very short. QuietCicada chirp 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, no sources apart from the Kickstarter campaign. IgelRM (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Rajasthan cricketers#R as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Sharma (Rajasthan cricketer)

Rohit Sharma (Rajasthan cricketer) (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)

Very short page and a violation of

talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The page is short but has reasonable coverage from reliable sources to warrant an article on the player. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTAVOTE, this has no policy-based reason for keeping. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎.

(non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Miss Polly Had a Dolly

Miss Polly Had a Dolly (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)

Contested prod. Original nomination rationale, which I agree with, was: Unsourced aside from a personal blog. If this nursery rhyme is as historical as claimed, there should be ample sources verifying that it isn't just made up. Jfire (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source (see "Children's Column" in the link provided) from 1871 that appears to have published an early version of this nursery rhyme. It’s also in this children's songbook from 1970—there are numerous indications it is likely historical, though popularity seems to explode mainly around the 1990s, just from a cursory overview of Google Books.
Someone else would need to fix the article, though—I googled this quickly out of curiosity, because I have a young child and (unfortunately) hear it constantly, but I do not have any more time to give to this task.
Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more references. This is notable and well sourced 84.78.242.197 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are much more sources than when the PROD was initiated. Seems notable also. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable only if there are reliable sources that discuss it in detail. So far, the only sources in the article lyrics sites, content farms, and database entries. User:Hermes Thrice Great found some marginally better sources above, but they still do not cover the topic in depth. They aren't enough to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, take a look a the newly added references. There are even references to the history of the rhyme. 90.167.203.25 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, none of these sources help establish notability.
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=2359 Yes No Self-published website No ✘ No
https://www.classical-music.com/articles/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-lyrics Yes Yes No Lyrics and a couple sentences saying it is a nursery rhyme of unknown origin ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/nursery-rhymes-miss-molly-had-a-dolly/zbjcy9q Yes Yes No Lyrics only ✘ No
https://nurseryrhymecentral.com/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-nursery-rhyme-lyrics-history-video-lesson-plans-more/ Yes No Self-published website ~ Some coverage, but may be machine generated ✘ No
https://www.vedantu.com/poems/miss-polly-had-a-dolly ? Dead link ? ? ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20090201105833/http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/missmolly.htm Yes ~ Government site, unknown author No Lyrics only ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Jfire (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I took my time to add more reliable, secondary sources. At least the nominator @Jfire should know that a nursery kids song like this should be notable regardless of insufficient sources. I made my research and I can see over 50 to 100 million views per video on YouTube for this song, it has also often received features on BBC radio. This topic is very NOTABLE. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my source assessment. Like the previous sources, these do not help establish notability.
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/kids-songs-nursery-rhymes-baby-songs-miss-polly-had-a-dolly-kids-nursery-rhymes-in-english/amp_videoshow/73904230.cms Yes No No Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/arts/television/cocomelon-moonbug-entertainment.html Yes Yes No Single passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/nursery-rhymes-in-english-children-songs-children-video-song-in-english-miss-polly-had-a-dolly/videoshow/90220581.cms Yes No No Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dzc48c/cocomelon-stories-176-miss-polly-had-a-dolly?seriesId=p09jn536&page=5 Yes No No Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Jfire (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for consensus. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- If it's in the Roud Folk Song Index it's notable. Also, while some of the new sources are sketchy there are sufficient good ones to meet GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer evaluation of the newly added sources to see if they meet GNG and SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Myawady season

2017 Myawady season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for second tier season that lacks any claim to notability. Sending to AfD as the article is too old to be sent to draft and, in any case, the creator has a history of moving the article back to mainspace without any improvement. Converting this to a redirect would also likely get reverted by the creator and I don't see this being a likely search term at all. Frankly, I don't see why we have separate season articles when the parent article is still only a stub. It would make more sense to improve the parent article, surely. Similar cases include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Cheshunt F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern about retaining the content of this article into the parent article is that I have no idea where this squad list has come from. The 'references' in the article do not seem to support the information at all, unless I'm missing something. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooph I'd make mine more a selective merge what's sourced then. Star Mississippi 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. No point in redirect. GiantSnowman 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point in redirect as target article also isn't sourced much. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is not enough notability or coverage to establish a Myanmar clubs season article. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete No SIGCOV, no real information provided in the article itself, very few sources. This article does nothing. Anwegmann (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No use putting a redirect as it's simply not have enough notability to have a separate article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Nyein Kyaw

Chan Nyein Kyaw (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 sourcing is way below our minimum requirements for a BLP and no evidence of

WP:GNG require multiple sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Phyo Wai

Kyaw Phyo Wai (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 sourced only to the Facebook page of his employer, which fails

WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDSF-LD

WDSF-LD (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)

Station does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriters on Parade

Songwriters on Parade (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:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:Original synthesis. I note that the entire second sentence fact failed verification when I looked at the cited source. For a two sentence long article that is pretty bad...4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dadvan Yousuf

Dadvan Yousuf (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 article with a very problematic history. Its creator, Kcosip, has been blocked for sockpuppetry (

WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Aintabli (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep was likely PROMO, but source 12 is solid, in a RS. [35], further coverage for opening a "crypto school" that was shut down by the regulators. These don't appear to be "allegations", but fraudulent activities. Doesn't perhaps pass criminal notability, but should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also coverage in French [36] and [37]. He's being investigated for money laundering [38] and [39] Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyae Moe

Pyae Moe (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's single source is about a totally different player; it is instead about

WP:SPORTBASIC from my own research. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoku Hata

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

It doesn't appear to meet

CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I would be really interested in the opinions of anyone who reads Japanese. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ORG?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as for ATD (just like I had mentioned in a similar Afd you had initiated....) redirect to List_of_Japanese_comedians#G seems suitable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Mushy Yank -- notability has been established now. DCsansei (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we hear more about improvements to the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Cornell Cup USA

Cornell Cup USA (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 particular indication of significance/notability here. [Note that I attend Cornell, have no connection with this org.] Eddie891 Talk Work 13:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No point in a 3rd when there's no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emoinu Fish Fest

Emoinu Fish Fest (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 one-day holiday fish market held once in 2023. Not notable. PepperBeast (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Emoinu Fish Fest was held last year for the very first time. This year it was canceled due to public outcry and there is no indication if it will be held again. It was a one time event so far and because of this, it fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Even though it was celebrated once as of now, it clearly said that it was the first time celebration, indicating that it will celebrated next time too. Unfortunately, due to
    WP:GNG (notability through the significance of the event to the public economically, culturally and socially) at each of their own rights. Countless articles are made in Wikipedia for a celebration of event organised in one year. What can we expect more? --Haoreima (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Maxwell

Angela Maxwell (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:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage above fails YOUNGATH, SPORTCRIT, and GNG. Both sources are from the same local newspaper and cover her youth achievements, so are disqualified from counting toward GNG; also, the more substantial one is a submission rather than the product of independent journalism (it's a "special to the Star-Telegram") and the briefer one is a routine announcement. @Let'srun
JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services

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

There is a dearth of

WP:GNG. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. The article currently has no independent sources and I was unable to find any. so the topic fails
    WP:NJOURNALS says that Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you, I looked for sources using the old name, but possibly I didn't look hard enough. I will look at your sources shortly. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear pass of
    b} 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Doesn't meet GNG. Does seem like a real and meaningful journal covering an important topic. We really need to find a WP:NJOURNALS that can get consensus to become a guideline. If I were king I'd probably put this just on the border of being something we should have. Seems to be about the median for the field. Impact score, if sources I'm finding can be trusted, is fairly low but rising. reluctant weak delete GNG not met, no SNG met. Almost an IAR keep from me. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I point to a relevant section of
    WP:N that seems to be overlooked some deletion discussions: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. If the only secondary coverage of this journal are various listings of it in different databases, that seems to barely, if at all, qualify as "significant coverage", and it seems unlikely that much more could ever be written about this journal besides the barebones factual information that is currently included in the article (I will concede that the quality and comprehensiveness of the article has improved somewhat compared to when I opened this discussion, but that doesn't have a bearing on the subject's notability). Such listings in databases may add to the "credibility" of the journal, but credibility is not the same thing as notability. I've seen the two occasionally get mixed together in different deletion discussions about academic journals (not specifically this current one), as I've gone back and read over them. I don't see how they are entirely the same thing. A journal can be credible and publish "good" research without being particularly notable according to Wikipedia's standards, and this journal does seem to fall into this area. There is nothing that seems to be particularly noteworthy about this journal when it is compared to all the other similarly situated journals out there that would support or warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Since NJOURNALS is an essay, not an SNG that enjoys broader community consensus, I fall back to GNG, and I still remain unconvinced that this particular journal has received the significant coverage necessary to meet GNG. Until such time that NJOURNALS enjoys a broader acceptance by the community than it currently does, and there is a more convincing case made that a journal being listed in certain databases automatically provides significant coverage and makes it notable, this is where I find myself. MaterialsPsych (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Film Development Board as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjibi Guragain

Chiranjibi Guragain (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 indication of notability.(

NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Film Development Board. Seems to be an administrative officer. One of the reliable source describes his work, but I think it is just an administrative work and not his individual contribution. There are no in-depth coverages. nirmal (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WETU-LD

WETU-LD (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. Redirect or merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harmon, Rick (June 5, 1997). "Station to station trek: 'Star Trek: Voyager' travels to new television channel". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. p. 2F. Retrieved February 20, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Norrie (law)

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:SIGCOV.SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of honours of the Greek royal family by country

List of honours of the Greek royal family by country (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)

Tagged for citation for over 5 years, fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Cheikh Voulany

Ely Cheikh Voulany (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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Sholl

Sandy Sholl (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. Coverage only in trivial mentions in connection with non-notable MadaLuxe. ~ A412 talk! 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete – Fails notability guidelines; agreeing on the nominator about the topic's trivial coverage, also one source that dedicates her sound more of a press release that I found on Google. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Fails
    talk) 06:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to MV Rubymar or Red Sea crisis‎. A consensus on target is does not require an extension of this AfD. Star Mississippi 02:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of the Red Sea crisis

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

A pointless fork of content that's already in the MV Rubymar article where the environmental impact should be discussed. Stephen 01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Yemen. Shaws username . talk . 02:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Technically speaking, this article was around nearly 18 hours before the MV Rubymar (03:41, 24 February 2024‎ for this articles creation compared to 21:39, 24 February 2024‎ (MV Rubymar’s creation), which means that MV Rubymar would be the “pointless fork of content”. Nonetheless, for an AFD, this does not need to be deleted. I would maybe consider a redirect in the future, but not for an AfD, when timestamps prove this was the first of the two articles. RM should have been used, not AfD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WeatherWriter Abo Yemen✉ 12:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MV Rubymar. At this point there is no need for a separate article for the oil spill from the MV Rubymar. Splitting would be okay if there are other aspects covered but those can also be merged to Red_Sea_crisis#Impact. Reywas92Talk 16:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:WHENSPLIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to MV Rubymar, or Red Sea crisis at a later date if other impacts than one ship are discussed with actual impact references rather than speculation. Stephen 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Red Sea crisis. It's too short to be its own article, the other article already delves into environmental impact of the crisis. However, if environmental impacts are further discussed in the future of this war, then it would be appropriate to have its own article RamHez (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. It can always be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reference

Secondary reference (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 would like to nominate

PROD'ed it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by User:Jasperdoomen, who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as {{Confusing}} and {{Unreferenced}}. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_3&oldid=1213054122"