Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

9 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 08	June 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024) edit

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

Propose article be deleted or at least moved to draft. At present this article seems to be little more than a list of news articles with no wider encyclopaedic merit (WP:NOTNEWS). There doesn't appear to be any evidence to link any of these events other than a rather arbitrary time period that feels created by editors, which there amounts to Wikipedia assigning correlation where there may be none (WP:OR).

Given the contentious topic nature of the subject matter feel it's best that the article be removed from at least main space until such a time it's improved or demonstrates merit for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Politics, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu edit

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

Can't find anything but postal directories about this village — not even its coordinates. Unsourced since creation in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senya Son edit

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

Compliance with WP:MUSIC has not been demonstrated. Some of it looks like a hoax. The article was deleted in Russian Wikipedia [1].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Polish (TV serial) edit

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. Saqib (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baddua edit

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by Qwef1234 - a sock of UPE farm. Fails WP:GNG! Saqib (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Dmitriyev (poet) edit

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

Compliance with WP:WRITER has not been demonstrated.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTG Metro edit

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources; sources are mostly obituaries. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bibliographies. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeesh Babu edit

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

This article was created in draft and speedy-deleted per WP:G11 on June 8. It was then recreated (somewhat less promotional) and PRODded. The PROD was removed by an IP, who also added some unsourced material. I (improperly because I had no right to reinstate the PROD) reverted the IP because of the unsourced material. Another administrator properly removed the PROD. The article still exists at Draft:Adeesh Babu, which is where I believe it should be until it's cleaned up and notability has been satisfied. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Sallis edit

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

Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOOL (FM) edit

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

No evidence of notability. The best source is an obituary of the founder. Other sources show that it exists but little else. A recent conversion to a redirect was immediatly reversed. Fails WSP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 South African provincial elections edit

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

No reason for this article to exist. User was BOLD in creating it, but there are individual articles for the provincial elections, and the results summary (which is all it is) belongs on the main page, where it was cut from. It also does not attribute the source article. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should really just be on the main article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAP implementation edit

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

No real sources, reads like a manual, mostly copied from manuals? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The InnerView edit

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

Not yet notable per WP:GNG, or WP:NTV (which is an essay, not a policy). I've hunted around for a few days now for some independent, secondary sources about this show, assuming that a show on the state public broadcasting network TRT World with such wide geographical coverage would have some decent reviews etc in reliable sources, but all I can find is more or less what's here: passing mentions of the show, in articles about the subjects of the interview. 73 of the 84 sources cited so far are from the show's own YouTube channel. Its chief claim to notability is the many notable people who have been interviewed on the show, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Article creator is a single-purpose account, and no response yet at their user talk page about potential conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Turkey. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters edit

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [2], [3], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [4], [5], and with a fun bit of analysis, [6]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn (defender) edit

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

I'm a bit unsure about this one, as he seemed to have a rather robust career, but it was entirely at the non-league, semi-pro level. There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a "delete" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Football figures whose playing and manager career is mostly confined to small clubs do not have exact material to support WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Scarborough F.C. players where he should be added. Giant Snowman 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know, I don't think redirecting to the players article helps, seems to be an important figure for the club in the 1970s and 1980s, first as a player then as a manager. I'd prefer to keep, however if not, suggest a redirect to the club page Scarborough F.C. His name is mentioned four times on the page, twice as player of the year and twice as manager. As the content on the article is sourced, it maybe a good idea to merge some of the content. Deletion doesn't help anyone. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a keep is a bit much for this player, but I'd be totally amenable to a merge or redirect, for sure. Anwegmann (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations edit

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief look at the references in the article was enough to convince me that India–Latin America relations are a notable topic covered significantly by reliable sources. Those are reputable, scholarly sources, like The Diplomat and several journal articles, discussing this subject at length. Toadspike [Talk] 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of India, where it makes more sense for now. Content could always be split if it becomes more comprehensive. Dan the Animator 00:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tushy (company) edit

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

So as I mentioned on my AfD for their CEO, here I am. There were... quite the volume of WP:PRODUCTREV to get through, but nothing with significant coverage of the company, and barely anything on any specific product. Though this was not the primary focus, I do not believe any individual product of theirs is notable either, even ignoring questions of ORGIND or RS. The coverage of their events would seem to be excluded on WP:SPIP. I don't see any plausible way to meet WP:NCORP here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sources 1 and 34 in the article are RS per Cite Highlighter and provide some coverage about the company. The rest help at least meet BASIC, some more extensive than others, but we should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC does not apply to companies, only people. But still they may qualify. I am gonna have a deeper look. Hkkingg (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets GNG then, we have enough to establish basic notability about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on present citations including dfdnews, People, Self.com, Digital Trends, Bidet Genius, and tech Crunch.Hkkingg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock

Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [7] [8] [9] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the available sources really meet NCORP criteria, as we cannot find independent, in-depth, non-trivial coverage. --176.210.111.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — 176.210.111.198 (talk) has only contributed to this XFD page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) not sure if you're someone who forgot to sign in or...[reply]
Comment they also want to purchase naming rights to a sports stadium in Buffalo [10] and [11]. These are sources that are about the company, not strictly about routine business funding and other normal company goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not routine coverage, and WP:SPIP besides? What "critical analysis of the event" is there? A few puns? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, there are a ton of "profiles". see the nytimes Freedun (yippity yap) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there is enough for an article about the founder. i think I'm going to start that some time but business people are kinda boring Freedun (yippity yap) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Now blocked as a UPE sock by Ponyo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to an article on Miki Agrawal, a quick glance indicates BASIC seems plausible, but for a company article the sources we need to write an article about a company need to be about the company. That means there needs to be independent content, published in independent RS, that is detailed and secondary enough to actually write an article from those sources. A profile on the founder doesn't cut it, even if the company is mentioned. (No matter how many times those mentions happen. Quantity is not a substitute.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology edit

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [12]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [13], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [14]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [15]. Examples include [16][17][18][19] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [20][21]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Andrews (actor) edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Working actor, reasonable career, but I couldn't find sources available to confirm he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs. Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEEE-LP edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Trueblood edit

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astronomy, Engineering, Switzerland, Arizona, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities edit

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NORG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article certainly needs more references to secondary sources, a quick google search shows notable coverage: CBS News Patch.com Pioneer Press Star Tribune - Manyyassin (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet edit

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser edit

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [22][23][24] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([25][26]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wouldn't be surprising if this page ends in soft deletion again, and someone would request a WP:REFUND. It's fine if no one joins in a deletion discussion, but it's very surprising that the creator who asked for the refund hasn't made any updates to this refunded page and hasn't participated in this discussion or previous ones. As a nominator, I am making a request to continue this deletion discussion for another round for one last time. If the page meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS and WP:HEY, then I'll withdraw the nomination. TCBT1CSI (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Here's your quorum. Doesn't meet NCORP, especially the bits about "reliable sources" and "No inherited notability" – just because they were bought and sold by StanChart once doesn't make them notable, and the sources seem like glorified press/data releases. Toadspike [Talk] 00:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. an AFD discussion can't close as Soft Deletion twice. And since there has already been an AFD Soft Deletion is not an option at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico edit

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai representatives at international male beauty pageants edit

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

This page seems to be almost exclusively cited to a random Facebook fanpage "ThailandBeautyQueen" and is probably the WP:OR of the account who inserted the links in a series of November 2023 edits, subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benebimo. There is no way to improve this without starting over with real sources, it should be WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main issue is whether this is a notable grouping that has been covered by independent reliable sources. Notwithstanding that, the entire page is just a table of plain information, which should be trivially verifiable. I don't see why this would fall into WP:TNT territory. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Hakushaku edit

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

It exists but isn't notable enough for its own article, and I can't find a good WP:ATD. Has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for a long time. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clap note edit

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

I couldn't establish for sure that this is notable. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for many years, and there don't seem to be the amount of sources available to show notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central 23 edit

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

Does not meet GNG or NORG. Sources are all interviews, lists of products, or do not mention Central 23. No RS found during BEFORE search. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention the company and others barely mention it. — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malli Nindu Jabili edit

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

Only a single source is TOI which only verifies an actor's role in the series. A WP:BEFORE found references to verify it exists, but no significant coverage to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Maa#Drama_series: Not opposed to keep (https://indiantvinfo.com/star-maa-serial-latest-trp/ and Telugu WP page indicate non-negligible audiences) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Crutched Friary edit

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

I found no coverage and the one sentence article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business edit

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFEM-LP edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bass 305 edit

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Explain the nomination, SL93. See WP:JNN under arguments to avoid and also WP:BEFORE. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did do WP:BEFORE. I already explained the nomination. Just read WP:BAND. I refuse to regurgitate the guideline. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players edit

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

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVTN-LD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asarva–Udaipur City Intercity edit

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG in any way, [27] which the article cites is just a list of train times. Sohom (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Riva edit

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Management, Switzerland, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gauntlett Eldemire III edit

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

This person is far from notable. There are no articles about him from any source other than his own school's website. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUB-LD edit

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Merge with Mercer University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Blum edit

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

Non-notable darts player per WP:SPORTCRIT. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]