Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 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 06	June 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Carl Schleicher edit

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation edit

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

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ekuma edit

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Shah (businessman) edit

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions in The Hindu and Fortune. He's interviewed in The Week as cited, but that's a primary source. Passing mentions, routine coverage in trade blogs and softball interviews was all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Promotional tone and editing history of article creator suggests UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHO MZF F.C. edit

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combined sources already in the article, and including the additional source in the Bahasa article, are exactly the sort of GNG-passing coverage I would expect of a lower division football team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like saying that it can't meet the actual GNG (and so IMO is not wp:notable) and so we need a different GNG to make sure that non-notable lower division football teams get in. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy at the way you've completely mis-represented my keep !vote. The article easily passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I posted in a way that highlighted what I felt to be issues with your argument. In hindsight, viewing it from another angle, such is a "spun negative" description of your post. I did not intend to do something like that. Please accept my apologies for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article only cover the game results, not the subject itself. As a team playing in the lowest division of football, its notability is limited to its region and it's relatively unknown on a national level. IMO, it doesn't meet the GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. These are not match reports, but rather articles about how the team won the championship, failed in the round of 16, et cetera, and football club notability is not based on whether they're important regionally, internationally, et cetera. They are also covered on an ongoing basis by the newspaper in their local area including sources not currently linked in the article, such as [1]: this is about the competition but the club is clearly the subject of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a routine coverage. According to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 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! 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit edit

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

WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be flawed as the nominator is taking issue with the title of the page, rather than the content. This is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Article can be moved to a more appropriate title if desired. The content of the article satisfies GNG, so the article should be kept at this or another title. Frank Anchor 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the content, too, treats the "circuit" as a real (albeit loosely defined) thing that "operated from 1890 to approximately 1940", had its own championships, and lived on as the W. Pa. Senior Indep. Football Conference -- all apparently OR claims. The article could perhaps be rewritten as an article about a related but somewhat different subject -- the early history of professional football in Western Pennsylvania -- and be titled accordingly, but the content as it stands now relates to an OR concept. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swofford, Washington edit

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

Meany's (source 3)[2] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [3] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [4], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31[5]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must have missed this one when I was trying to clear Washington of non-existent place articles. Nom sums it up pretty well, a onetime rural post office named for the person who said "hey, my neighbors and I need a post office" isn't a community, and saying it "is" a community is plainly false as there is clearly nothing there: [6]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A couple books from 1922 and 1923 describe it as a town, and Swofford cemetery is nearby, though it's described as now being in Mossyrock. I've also seen conflicting contemporary reports that say it's just a post office from a smallpox outbreak around the turn of the century, and that people were listed as being from Swofford in cattle and education reports in 1920 and 1923. There's some conjecture in the nom, and I think we can say there was a small community there at one point, even if it's clearly not referred to as Swofford any more. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only place that was called swofford was the post office, in was in Swoffard Valley, but the postal service only used single words to name them at that time. The area was always known Swofford valley. Any newspapers that reported local news from "Swofford" did so because that was the post mark on the letter. The newspaper got that news by mail from who ever in the valley wrote in to report it. James.folsom (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention could you please source the claims in your argument. James.folsom (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly so. I asked on the Talk:Swofford, Washington page to pause any slotting of the article into AfD as I have sources (and still collecting more) to rewrite and expand the article to provide proof of a community. However, the AfD went ahead 4 hours later... I ask any admin or editor with AfD closure rights to please pause any action for a few days so that I (or others) can work on the page; see per WP:RUSHDELETE. In case there is any doubt, please see my efforts at Ceres, Washington, Cora, Washington, and Forest, Washington. Would a Template:Under construction be necessary/appropriate? Also, I have viewed similar sources that back up SportingFlyer's mentions. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally finished updating and expanding other articles under AfD via the GNIS cleanup process so I'll be able to devote time tomorrow to add sourcing and expansion on the Swofford article. I again ask admins and those involved for a couple extra days before any potential actions to delete the Swofford page. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. 2 The article has been expanded, mentioning both Swofford and Swofford Valley synonymously as the community does and backed up by sourcing. Relied on local news articles, as one does for small, rural communities in the USA. Article is written and sourced well-enough now, IMO, to further warrant Keep status. A quick note - news articles ref'd on the page consistently refer to Swofford as a town or community. I decided to go ahead and do the work straight to the article rather than my previous AfD-saving attempts of listing sources first on the talk page. It's just doing double the work and is by no means trying to circumvent anything. Being WP:BOLD? I dunno, just don't have the time to do twice the effort. Feel free to add or subtract from what I wrote on the article page...or leave some notes on what could be improved. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[7]] (1/3), [[8]] (2/3), [[9]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Chicken edit

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

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject. — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. City of Silver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:

'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'

WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED

Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating

CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS

Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend

SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE

Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC

Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?

Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus edit

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

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Gordon University Charlie (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like one very-detailed long-winded advertisement promoting the campus. I wouldn't even suggesting merging it as the main Robert Gordon University article seems to already have all the relevant information about the campus. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I created this article as the content was making the university article very long. Concerns about it being promotional can be addressed through editing. However, there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited down a couple of articles with the same or similar issues, I edited down a couple of sections on this article and they ended up resembling the main Robert Gordon University article - the RGU:Sport section on here is now shorter than the one on the main RGU article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:59, 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!} 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist League (2019) edit

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

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 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!} 06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Space Contemporary edit

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

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 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!} 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9wm edit

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

I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 31 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!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.J.M. Matriculation Higher Secondary School edit

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 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!} 07:31, 31 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!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcalde edit

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2 edit

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - depending on the outcome of this discussion, we may also want to nominate Sagem myX-7 for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 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!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck -- sock. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 31 May 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!} 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster Gardens edit

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you think it fails GNG? I see many sources for this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/A_guide_to_Plymouth_and_its_history/FfLLEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&pg=PT33&printsec=frontcover https://www.plymouthindependent.org/steps-in-the-right-direction-brewster-gardens-project-finished/ Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote Keep for now given the sources I've managed to find and no explanation on why it fails GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Plymouth/IP4lKfB4StkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/old-colony-memorial/2020/11/12/plymouth-garden-club-parks-forestry-division-spruce-up-brewster-gardens/6271874002/ (doesn't help establish notability on it's own) https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Qr0wBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA244&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&ots=Qm96qdgJEM&sig=ihOH6lAbusl7hLGYDBvLpfA6xDc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Brewster%20Gardens%22&f=false

This appears to be a park that is often used for public gatherings and protests alongside being frequently mentioned in information about local history. Still not seeing how this fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 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!} 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prefer seeing the article about Brewster Gardens being merged into the article about Plymouth, Massachuetts. Anonymous (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "delete" would ensure the article is not merged into Plymouth, Massachusetts. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic demonstrably does meet GNG. Vacuous nominations should be closed down, not voted on. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks and Co. edit

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

The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [[10]] from 2006 was all I could unearth

I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Advertising, Companies, Management, California, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sacks and Co. article currently lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, raising concerns about its verifiability and relevance. However, instead of deletion, efforts could be made to improve the article by adding credible references and enhancing its content.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken such an effort to improve and, as noted, only a single credible reference could be found. Volcom95 (talk) 17:23, 4 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!} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created in 2008 by an SPI, indeed that was their only edit. Per the above, only one source could be found, so subject is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records edit

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need ONE redirect. target article, a closer shouldn't be flipping a coin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities edit

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Craven edit

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

This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes the article needs to be rewritten but the subject still meets GNG ([11][12][13][14][15]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has been repeatedly confirmed at DRV sources presented during an afd should be ignored and this article should be purely judged on it's current state and should be deleted, unless of course the closing admin chooses to guess what a select few voters just might have possibly been thinking then they can choose to supervote based on their imagination. Don't bother making an effort. Your sources will be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Target of article is notable enough for inclusion. Sources per GMH Melb's comment above. Triplefour (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Anwarul Haque edit

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

Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khandoker Musa Khaled edit

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

No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gray (rugby union) edit

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

No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy Ejimakor edit

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Nigeria. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Not vote) The subject was mentioned on multiple RS but not in-depth. He may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:RS but doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability as his private life (in-depth) wasn't covered sources.

Cheers, (Chat With Term)talk 05:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your points, let's add WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Thank you, War Term. JFHJr (㊟) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) per sources used, they are all "Ejimakor says", but that is not what we're after per WP:N. One mentioned "American trained Lawyer", but that's not enough. Vanguard is probably an ok source, not sure about the other 2.

He should probably be mentioned at Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency_and_second_arrest, "As of 2024, Kanu's lead counsel is..." Something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I retract the WP:N comment. What about the other two? @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JFHJr (Chat With Term)talk 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:N fails, they're not very relevant for this discussion. No WP:N, no article. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War Term: If you're the creator and you're retracting N, why not change your vote to speedy delete? JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge

While the article may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS, it doesn't meet WP:N at the moment. I suggest deleting and merging to Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency and second arrest as it should be Wikipedia:TOOSOON per the comment of @Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Chat With Term)talk 07:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems at worst harmless, I added a mention of him at [16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co. edit

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

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally operating, 8th-largest law firm of Israel with plenty of coverage in 74 (!) years of existence. Easy pass of NORG. Unclear how this could have nevertheless been nominated. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Gidonb, could you provide a few hebrew RS with sigcov? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) edit

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Products, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over.

ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Manila Pavilion Hotel fire edit

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention at List_of_building_or_structure_fires#2018 can also be an alternative to deletion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Guarino edit

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

The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Maine. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Germany, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in California edit

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

List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and California. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the linked Wikipedia page, the article topic (which is about festivals in California) needs to be talked as a whole in other sources. Such sources are not referenced. 47.153.138.166 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Reza Khoshshans edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war edit

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

I've created this article copy-pasting from the main article (Israel–Hamas war) 1 month ago, but I think this article is very poorly written and I cannot help but find the International Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war article to be thousands of times better than this one. I believe this article should be deleted. Maybe one or two things can be merged into the above article, but I don't really see how. It's also a possibility to rename the above article to remove the word "international" after the potential deletion of this one, but I digress. Josethewikier (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably add a Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion G7 tag to get this speedily deleted since you are the original author and no other substantial content has been added. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Park, New Zealand edit

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

Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit to not understanding this nom, as a simple search of the NZ Herald brings up over 300 results about the suburb. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at any of the articles? They're all appear to be generic news reports about incidents in the area and do not establish any notability to the place itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanati Clothing Company edit

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

Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Companies. Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]