Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFD/Yesterday)
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< June 09 June 11 >

Purge server cache

Maria Rabinky edit

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

None of the information in this article is sourced, the "references" are just links to Rabinky's artwork. A Google search only produces links to websites selling her artwork, although I did find this press release on Google News about a distinction she seems to have won. I'm unsure of its notability. In any case, I haven't found anything else. (NB: Sorry for resubmitting, was interrupted when I did it the first time and it was deleted.) WikiFouf (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter edit

2023 Anantnag encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jamnicky edit

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. It should also be noted Australia only got to play handball in 2000 Olympics as host nation. They lost every game. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ennepetal hostage taking edit

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

Article on a hostage taking that lasted one day from 19 years ago, created the day of the hostage taking, uncited even then. Article has sat largely untouched for the past two decades. There are sources exclusively from the day this happened. The only thing I found that wasn't from the actual day this occurred was a 1 paragraph mention in a list of German hostage crises from 2010, which does not have enough detail to build an article from.

Fails WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 SPA Cup edit

2015 SPA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An inter school cricket competition that fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Similar AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPA Cup (2nd nomination) LibStar (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to pass general notability guidelines as well as with the lack of significant coverage in any reliable and independent sources to the subject Fade258 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, coverage for the main tournament is incredibly limited, let alone for a season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Walkingshaw edit

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

Scottish women's footballer that fails WP:GNG. The She Kicks and Daily Record references already in the article are the closest to WP:SIGCOV I could find, and they each have just a few sentences of routine coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay edit

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

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage provided by IP fails WP:SIRS. Saqib (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:
1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
This article in Profit was written by its staff and is a more-than-3000-word investigative journalism. This article is also by a staff member, is directly about SadaPay, and is more than 4k words long. I hope you're in good health (with all this hard work) because you're making a lot of wrong assessments and sloppy AfDs lately. Please consider slowlying down and not every comment need your reply (as multiple time requested on your talkpage recently). 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076, But it's not just me. Both @Timtrent and @Cryptic also turned down the same coverage, dismissing it as "PR," as you can see above. — Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The only person who did anything significant to this page is the creator, who has nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:G7. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mearsheimer bibliography edit

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

I don’t think this needs an explanation. This should definitely be deleted or merged into the main article. 48JCL TALK 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an explanation? Ivan (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Panta n' antamonoume edit

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 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! 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Knight Windom XP edit

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

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google gave me a bunch of results for unrelated games on ModDB, and WP:LIBRARY isn't really helping. Fails GNG. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy edit

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- multiple sources attest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any sources to attest to being the winner of the Dr. B.C. Roy Award in 1986 as claimed in the article and per the Dr. B. C. Roy Award page itself, the 1986 award went to Jagjit Singh Chopra with a citation. The other claims and sources mentioned above are not included in the article as of this writing, a basic Google search of the name does not return any mention of said awards besides the textbooks, and the sources that are there are primary and the tone overall does not seem neutral. I think it's possible that this could be noteworthy and meet NPROF but at the moment it does not. Kazamzam (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 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! 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr. edit

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment edit

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously considered for deletion in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt. Since then notability of schools is much stricter. This one is unreferenced for 14 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 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! 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I edit

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software) edit

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [6], [7], [8], [9]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.
Weak delete per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:
  • There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([10], [11], [12] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
  • Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
  • The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
  • The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.
I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
  • WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
  • This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.
Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 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! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not a community recognized WP:SNG. It's only an essay and doesn't appear to be widely vetted as it doesn't look like it's linked from any guidelines pages. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls NSOFT seems basically like consensus that reviews count towards SIGCOV, which is also found in many other places. The magazine feature isn't a review either. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 8 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! 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustierung edit

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

It seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 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! 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emicho edit

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

Article is a mess with multiple WP:BLPVIO issues. The seeming lack of information about Count Emicho outside the wall of text about the First Crusade or Rhineland massacres seems to confirm the article lacks WP: NOTABILITY. The article even had a Holocaust reference in it for whatever reason, until I removed it. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salutation yet again, I'm going to CV what I said on your talk page.
"it is obvious to me that the article in question is mostly un-sourced, and what sources it does use are secondary or "primary anonymous accounts" which contradict whatever this person did or at least claimed to have done. I might add also that is a point of contention with the Jewish people since most see him as a barbaric Christian who mindlessly killed their peers, also those "primary anonymous accounts" are allegedly written by Jewish authors, which makes this situation even more concerning. History is not about personal vendettas nor is it about claiming that only one party is to blame while the other is innocent. If those alleged did happen then why does not one Christian author (in the article itself) has wrote about it? More likely Emicho has taken the role of a fall guy to blame everything on him as a reflection of Jewish (justified) hatred of Christians." Ukudoks (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fantastic Mr. Fox, this cannot possibly violate WP:BLP because the subject has been dead for 1,000 years. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "there were many accounts stating the legend that Emicho's soul is guarding the gate of Rhineland" Did he/she even exist to begin with? For such a notorious individual we know close to absolutely nothing about his/her personal life etc. I agree with :@Fantastic Mr. Fox: that we should delete this article or at least modify it entirely and build from there Ukudoks (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A basic Google search for Emicho of Flonheim (which is probably what this article should be titled) exclusively in English returned a plethora which provide WP:SIGCOV, including but not limited to: two journal articles ([13][14]), at least two biographical dictionary entries ([15][16]), and an entire book chapter ([17]). I have not conducted a search in German, but am reasonably confident SIGCOV-providing sources exist in that language too, as this encyclopedia entry lists two German sources including another journal article specifically about him. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those historians are using at least four primary sources which have been alleged to be created by Jewish "anonymous accounts", that is the root of our question. How can we know those anonymous sources were telling the truth? Simply put, we don't know

    As I've stated above it is a point of contention with Jewish individuals that use it as ammunition (for good reasons too) against the Crusades and/or Christianity.

    Thus while it might have a plethora of secondary sources, it doesn't have a plethora of primary sources that at least have a somewhat coherent timeline with what happened. Ukudoks (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this argument has absolutely no basis in any WP:P&G. An academic source can certainly be unreliable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of their sourcing, but simply being partially sourced to anonymous primary accounts is not itself damning and is in fact quite regular in historical writing. To quote from WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect if you look at the references on Emicho's article and Rhineland massacres article it heavily relies on secondary sources. And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information. Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are.

    I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on. Ukudoks (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what happening with this article right now, but it used to be perfectly fine. If I remember correctly it was once known as "Emich of Leiningen" but I think it was moved to avoid confusion with another person with the same/a similar name. Anyway he was a real and notable guy and there are plenty of sources about him. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Those "plenty" sources (I assume that you mean secondary and not primary) are not stated on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Ukudoks (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only primary sources I can find on wikipedia (relating to Emicho's role in the massacres) are:

    Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana
    Mainz Anonymous
    Solomon bar Simson Chronicle
    Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle

    While others are secondary and therefore unreliable. Ukudoks (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ukudoks Secondary sources are not unreliable; in many ways, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, according to the academic or editorial rigor they have been subjected to. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources are "preferable" because they suit modern interpretations of politics, public institutions and society. I absolutely agree. Ukudoks (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking, why do I remember the title being Emich of Leiningen? Oh yeah, I'm the one who created this, way back in the olden days, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unless he's some sort of super human that lives for 1000 yrs, I don't think we have to worry about BLP violations. Might not be neutrally written, but AfD isn't cleanup. We have this [18], [19] and the book chapter shown above, it's fine. BDP perhaps, deceased people ? Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some here do not realize the implications of not using primary sources to back up the crimes he allegedly committed, which is the main point for his existence on Wikipedia Ukudoks (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use primary sources, we can only use what others have written about this individual. We can't do original research nor draw our own conclusions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck through the BLP statement, I have no clue what was running through my head at the time. The correct wording is that it fails WP:NPOV. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Frodsham edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). Possible redirect targets include List of St Helens R.F.C. players and List of North Wales Crusaders players. JTtheOG (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough sources. Oppose redirects on the basic that he had played for multiple clubs so will be known by different people for playing at different clubs so picking one will be arbitrary. Mn1548 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Tasci edit

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syron Saut edit

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Cricket League edit

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC/WP:OFFCRIC. Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago. No WP:LASTING. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evides pubiventris edit

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

A similar article exists. Kindly redirect to that NBV2010 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zitouni edit

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

The article does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Bogdan edit

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Besides the first Google news hit, the rest of the coverage I found was not in depth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I couldn't find any notable events in their career as an ambassador, and none are mentioned in the references either.
ADifferentMan (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

2023 MLB London Series edit

2023 MLB London Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable series with no non-routine coverage that can be covered sufficiently at MLB London Series. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that the current state of the article is not great, but no non-routine coverage is just an odd thing to say when WP:BEFORE is conducted. Here's CNN, a news site that doesn't often cover baseball. Here's from The Guardian. I could keep going but that seems unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, although "notable" is something of a red herring. Other than the full team rosters, all of this information should be in the MLB London Series article. MLB has demonstrated that neutral-site international games are not so unique that there should be be stand-alone articles for each of them. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue it's about the same as the yearly world series, you have articles about it every year. This has become an annual thing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a poor comparison; the World Series decides the MLB champion and therefore receives commensurate coverage in newspaper articles, books, and documentaries produced well after the games are played, with some books (such as [20][21][22]) being dedicated to just one World Series. While it's WP:TOOSOON to say if particular London Series will garner the same sort of coverage, we can say for certain that it doesn't exist yet, and therefore it would be more appropriate to develop a summary of each year's series in the parent article until it becomes clear that standalone articles for each year's series are warranted. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: How is this not notable, when we have pages of hits in RS in both US and UK media? What's already in the article is RS [23], [24], [25], [26], this [27] from French media, a year before the event. It's gotten sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there sustained coverage of the 2023 series, or is the coverage this year of the 2024 London Series? Walsh90210 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While there is sufficient coverage and content to create separate articles for each year of the London Series, the same could probably be said of any MLB regular season series. The location of the games is the thing that is particularly notable, and that aspect can be included in MLB London Series. Since only three series have been played so far, details of each year can comfortably be merged into the parent article at present. I suppose if the series did continue for many years then the main article might become too long and detailed, so at that point we might want to remove things like line scores. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this wasn't really different from any regular season series apart from the fact the game was held internationally. Can easily be covered in the parent page. SportingFlyer T·C 06:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Vermeulen edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI era edit

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

This entire article reads like a WP:CRYSTAL essay and contains nothing that isn't covered better in the many other AI-related articles, most of which are linked. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to remove any speculation, I don't believe it belongs in the article or at least should be reworded to be more neutral and merely quoting and documenting the various perspectives of what people and organization are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More 'basic machine learning rebranded as a buzzword' WP:PROMO. If there is an age, it doesn't even have shape cognition yet, and that 'period of AI era section'...this is why we have WP:MADEUP, except I'm sure a kid's game would actually be playable compared to this grown adult's invented nonsense. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted here that the 'Periods of AI era' section contains blatant WP:OR. It cites a June 2024 publication for the 'nomenclature', while citing an article from 2019 for 'defining events'. The 2019 article (paywalled unfortunately) can not possibly be defining words before they were invented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No question it's OR, and it looks like it's sourced from a blatant pay-for-play paper mill. Nate • (chatter) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete For all we know this could end up being the "LLM Era", the lead of which could very well end "LLMs were eventually abandoned when it was determined that they and Bitcoin mining were consuming half the energy budget of the planet to produce a great deal of unreliable and even hoax output." A pure distillation of hype and WP:CRYSTAL that needs to be suppressed before it's used by the unwary to bring this monstrosity to life in the internet wilds. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not just the LLM era, practically all experts at this stage agree that AI will continue improving and surpassing humans at more and more tasks with no signs of a coming plateau from scaling. This will inadvertently lead to the development of AGI, significant job losses and restructuring of human society.
    Nothing about it is really hype, and nothing in the article is predicting anything in the future as fact, its merely documenting what independent and notable sources are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got my copy of Computer Power and Human Reason when it was brand-new and I was in high school, so I think I have a sufficient history of seeing the various World-Changing Advances In Artificial Intelligence go by the wayside, one by one, to be dubious about this one whose experience by the public is only a year or so old. We are still in the hype/panic stage of LLMs, and there's no telling whether or not they're going to be a dead end like all the rest. For all we know, in a couple of years everyone could be saying "well, THAT was a bad idea" or it could become a festering backwater like blockchain. It's simply too soon to proclaim an era, and an encyclopedia doesn't get points for being the first to jump on the bandwagon. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has the purpose of documenting the hundreds of media articles that are claiming the start of an AI era, the fact that every major tech company focusing on the development of artificial general intelligence, and we are indisputably heading towards a post-AGI future Mr Vili talk 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite can you please let me know which other article there is on wikipedia dedicated to documenting the large-scale ongoing effects of AI. Clearly there is hundreds of media articles, scholarly articles and reports from extremely notable organizations that are clearly pointing describing it as the next industrial revolution and a new era in human history.
The closest is the AI boom, but that is merely covering the technological perspective, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing documenting the ongoing effects and anticipated post-AGI world... Even if a post-AGI world is never actualized, it's large-scale anticipation is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering Google, Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, and many other of the largest tech companies are all narrowing down to develop AGI, with some explicitly making that their mission.
To say that doesn't deserve any encyclopedic coverage seems absurd Mr Vili talk 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. It should encyclopaedically cover subjects as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources, and is not a publisher of original research. This page is not a summary of a subject in independent reliable secondary sources. No anthropologists are writing about the mesonoetic period. That table of periods, for instance, is sourced to an article on Daniweb, an online technology forum. Is it reliable? the writer claims to be a journalist, but I see not sign any editor seriously touched that piece. It is, in any case, a primary source for the information it is supporting. If the writer makes up the period names, it's a primary source used here. And he certainly seems to have made them up. He definitely doesn't reference anything for them. Building an article from a mishmash of this kind of information is fundamentally flawed - and what s true there is true throughout. This is OR, and should be deleted per WP:NOT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Hadi Imanieh edit

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy356248 (talk • contribs) 16:40, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Hamed Ameli edit

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad edit

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Lyndon Hartnick edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber edit

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

I know it has only been two months since the last nomination but that ended as no consensus, which was not an endorsement of notability. There has been another nationwide election since then and this candidate is still getting under 0.5%. There are sources about her, yes, but they're mainly discussing her candidacies and are part of a WP:ROUTINE coverage expected in a democracy. Some other parties are mainly based around the founder, such as Vox and Chega, but those parties have hundreds of other office holders and the founders have their own individual notability as office holders and nationally recognisable figures. Apart from being an unsuccessful candidate, what can be said about Liber that isn't about her party? The page used to have information about education and children, which I removed as unsourced per BLP. I also removed the blow-by-blow of setting up a political party, as that's obviously more about the organisation than about her. But the thing is, would we ever need to know personal information about someone this notable? I saw the comment before that Liber is notable as a founder and leader of a political party, but in a democracy it's reasonably easy to set up a party, and extremely easy to be the leader of your own party. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Liber's electoral history: 2021 Lisbon local election (0.36%), 2022 national election (voters in other European countries constituency) (0.08%), 2024 national election (Lisbon constituency) (0.18%), 2024 European election (0.18%). Not sure at which point someone becomes notable the hard way, like Bill Boaks. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging all previous commenters: AusLondonder Moondragon21 PamD SportingFlyer BlakeIsHereStudios Prima.Vera.Paula Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page could potentially be merged into Nova Direita as it is considerably larger. 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Conservatism, Angola, France, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not keep articles on failed political candidates for a variety of different reasons under WP:NOT, and she's not notable for being the leader of a very small political party either. It's not impossible she'll be notable in the future, but at the moment I think this is an easy delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nova Direita - there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, a slightly-longer description of her in the party's article is sufficient. Not impossible this would change in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Dentistry edit

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!
    "this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    then why not nominate other school/colleges pages that has lesser sources, you are only targeting my pages Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Engineering edit

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement, which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.
    I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is about the school that created the invention.

    The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD. The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina edit

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

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Chingum edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough! Thank you for your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4000 edit

IC 4000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definitely not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3786 edit

IC 3786 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT C messier (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as notability cannot be shown. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: definitely not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erigo edit

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

The company lacks sufficient reliable sources; not notable organization Jibbrr tybr (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not notable, delete per WP:SIGCOV (nothing official pops up on google for the first few pages) Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources about this company. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 DDG9912   13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inphonex edit

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

Apologies in advance for editors reviewing this AfD. In any other situation I would PROD this as obviously failing the notability guidelines for companies, but because this quickly-withdrawn AfD exists the article is now permanently ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pas CORP; I find no hits about this business in Gnews. Regular Gsearch brings up their website and various PR items. None of which help notability. Article is currently sourced to their website and a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HB Arcade Cards edit

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

I could not find any significant coverage besides the Nintendo Life and IGN reviews in the article. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Abdollahi edit

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 13:27, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Fashion Central edit

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

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Systems Associates FZE edit

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

Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Krejcarek edit

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

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal edit

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

111 Rocket Regiment edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi (disambiguation) edit

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

Per Talk:Preethi#Requested move 2 June 2024 the film is the only topic with this title. The other two entries are WP:TITLEPTMs. As names they should follow MOS:DABNAME, but with only two entries disambiguation can be handled by hatnotes. Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There is at least one film and one person with "Preethi" in their name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Names aren't WP:PTMs. It's reasonable for someone to refer to one with the name as simply "Preethi", whether or not they are known mononymously. That being said, the guidance for names in regards to disambiguation pages is at WP:NAMELIST, which is pretty much "use an anthroponomy index unless you're well known". This has been done in this case, with the creation of Preethi (name). -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Broadcasting edit

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network edit

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran edit

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters edit

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at that target. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree, that's why I stand by saying weak keep and redirect at the present time. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest) and would much rather it become a redirect rather than a draft, if that is the choice. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.
I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option).
I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.[1][2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.[3][4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.
As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.
Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about things going "my way," I'm just saying that what will, probably, happen if a certain result is reached. I have no influence over whether people are convinced to keep the article or not. Their decision is their business and it seems too time consuming to try and convince people here to change their minds. People already have their minds made up and there's nothing I can do about that. At this point, all I hope is that the page becomes a redirect. If it doesn't, then oh well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
  2. ^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  3. ^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  4. ^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  • Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture edit

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon edit

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

Considering that the first bullet point refers to a page about legal punishment, not extrajudicial, and the second bullet point refers to a page which doesn't even mention Lebanon, I don't think this disambiguation serves any real purpose. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / redirect. I'm OK with it being deleted if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on your feedback I changed it to be a redirect to the most relevant of the 5 pages on the revised list i made earlier today. I checked that the new target page includes several Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a poor redirect to me, equating the title to things done by Israel, while it seems that there may well have been such killing by e.g. Syria or internally during the civil war. I think it is better not to have a page (disambig or redirect) for this at all. Fram (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fram. Plus please do not singlehandedly decide for the WP community what the outcome of a debate should be. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meantime, I undid the improper redirect. The disambig is POV, possibly an ATTACK page, and the redirect worked the same way. For good and bad, after an AfD was started, we need to debate this until a resolution is reached. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb, I'm not sure what you are referring to? The notice I followed to get here said: "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed." So if you mean we are not supposed to edit it during the discussion, maybe it's got the wrong notice showing? MWQs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits are certainly OK, even encouraged, change into a redirect or rename not. These are AfD resolutions that we should leave for a community decision once an AfD has started. Hence I restored the version after your additional edits and before the redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misinterpreted. MWQs (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't think any other options were on the table? It seems to be an inappropriate use of a disambiguate? And nobody seemed keen to turn it into an article? So a redirect was all that's left?
did my smaller edits help? are there other edits that could be made to turn it onto an acceptable disambiguate?
I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping it. Just it seemed I'd misused the disambiguate concept and I felt obliged to try and fix my error.
If nobody has any good ideas for something to turn it into we should probably just delete it?
MWQs (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment some number of pages have {{World topic|prefix=Extrajudicial killings in|noredlinks=yes}} on them, which has resulted in the {{incoming links}} maintenance tag being added to the disambiguation page. Something about this situation feels incorrect. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a disambiguation page. But the real purpose of this page is unclear to me. The Banner talk 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird edit

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 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! 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Darling edit

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

Couldn't find a reliable source verifying notability of or significantly covering the whole song by the Supremes. Sure, it charted in (West) Germany, but that's all I can find. If it fails GNG, then the song may also fail WP:NSONG. Even if notable, the article won't likely expand in the near or far future. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to The Supremes discography#1960s as alternative to deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh edit

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 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! 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquin Jansen edit

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

South African rugby BLP. I found a handful of sentences of coverage here, which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club edit

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yap football team edit

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

OK, the relevant Afd was in 2011. Let's ask some questions.

  • Question 1: Notability policies and guidelines have changed since then, haven't they?
  • Question 2: has this particular Association Football team may have gathered some WP:SIGCOV since 2011?

My answers are to these questions

  • Answer 1: Yes, they have changed, and are adverse to the retention of this article. this would appear to me strongly supportive of a "delete" outcome here
  • Answer 2: Nope, not as far as I can see

Despite or possibly because Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I'm fine with any alternate outcome Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the participation in Football at the Micronesian Games is not sufficient for an article on its own; and there is nothing else to base an article on. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neutral regarding whether to retain this title as a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Football at the Micronesian Games. Everything one could want to know about the team is located there. Very far from notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly there's nothing really wrong with this article apart from the fact it's for a very dusty far away area of the football world where the team isn't consistently active and where most news gets posted on Facebook instead in newspapers. I think deleting this makes our encyclopaedia worse as it's correct and reliably sourced, but I can't make a good solid argument to keep this, nor is any coverage from the tournament they participated readily available online which could rebut the #2 argument for deletion. So IAR keep from me, which will be discarded, but still, I object. I am sure the competitions they participated in received at least some coverage somewhere, though, similar to the 2023 futsal tournament which was meant to create interest in the sport. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cos (X + Z) 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎ as the wrong venue — AfD is for articles only; files go to files for discussion. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Always remember us single.jpg edit

File:Always remember us single.jpg (edit | [[Talk:File:Always remember us single.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan-made album cover, serves no purpose Sricsi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby League Varsity Match edit

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

It exists, but isn't notable. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate 8 edit

Huawei Mate 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WesBank Raceway edit

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a suitable WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years now, so hopefully we can decide now one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reading articles at news24 and IOL, I'm able to gather that the race track existed for four years before the land was sold. There's a throwaway line of "so many records were broken here" but nothing specific. I don't see that any notable races happened here, that notable racers racers there. Or any SIGCOV while it was operating. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Talk Network edit

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Due to the way it is written (and wholly unsourced), even if notable it would need TNTing. I couldn't see a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 dissolution of the National Assembly edit

2024 dissolution of the National Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It could be merged into the article of 2024 French legislative election. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought, I think it's best if we merge this per others. Topic is definitely notable, but best put up with the 2024 Legislatives. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/redirect The dissolution is just the call for the snap election, absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a separate article when it can be covered in the election's background. Sustained coverage will obviously be about the election, not the dissolution as an independent, unrelated topic. Do not make one-sentence pages like this either. Reywas92Talk 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2024 French legislative election. The topic is notable (and may well be discussed for years as either a successful gamble or an unsuccessful one), but it is probably best discussed in the article on the election itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2024 French legislative election. Moondragon21 (talk 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Redirect to 2024 French legislative election per nom; this should be uncontroversial. This topic should be part of that article; and in fact that article already contains more information than this one-sentence stub. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 French legislative election as the proper page for this event. --Enos733 (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral about the issue. I created the page because as a French citizen, I felt like it was a real subject that should be treated, but then I saw that WP:EN never created separated pages for the few previous dissolutions. So I decided to not intervene on the page anymore until the decision was made. However, note that there are plenty of sources and it could perfectly be a reliable and well sourced article, for example with a section 'background' (which would speak about previous dissolutions, which I think is not mentioned or talked about on 2024 French legislative election and even would be a little outside of the scope of that specific article, in fact. Another section could be about the results, and thus permitting the reader to go to the page of 2024 French legislative election. However, as I'm the writer of the article, I think it's better to stay neutral for me, but those are my insights into the issue.- AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon T. Bailey edit

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

Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Zander edit

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

ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 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! 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move per BD2412. My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity edit

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

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[30][31][32][33] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws[34][35] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 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! 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
    Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the phrase seems to be too ambiguous to redirect to any of the (several dissimilar and notable) topics that the term could describe. The disambiguation page should remain. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." The term "blood purity" is found in different wordings ("pure blooded" i.e.), essentially meaning the same thing. Whether talking about a race of people, or a breed of animal. Go with whatever usage the source does. We don't need a DAB page to tell us that. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow edit

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford edit

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 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! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture edit

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 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! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School edit

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc♫talk  00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc♫talk  08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc♫talk  11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc♫talk  11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc♫talk  11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is about all I can find [37] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli edit

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 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! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahonri Ngakuru edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. Unless WP:SIGCOV is found, I suggest draftification. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Lots of coverage here, although it's very close as to whether it passes WP:GNG or not. Given his career is just starting and he will likely generate further coverage in the future I'd suggest weak keep. Personally wouldn't dratify as I imagine it will just get forgotten about here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support draft not seeing any independent sigcov. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft / Delete as this individual does not yet seem notable as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Broadcasting edit

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

Subject lacks the needed sources to meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Werner edit

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

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy edit

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PW van Vuuren edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs Mhlongo edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coert Cronjé edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"