Hosta

< February 25	February 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep/nomination withdrawn‎. Some are weak, but there are no extant delete !votes Star Mississippi 14:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Meier

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

This article about a writer and businessperson is poorly referenced. I have added a reference to a mention of one of her books, but cannot find other coverage to add and am not clear that she meets WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There was a slightly better referenced version of the article until 2021, but none of the three references in that are reliable and independent. Tacyarg (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, United States of America, and Connecticut. Tacyarg (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The usual Kirkus and Pub. Weekly reviews [1], [2]. There's a palliative care doctor with the same name and decent reviews in medical journals, that is a different person; apparently already has an article [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR. She is an Macmillan author and found the book reviews described in the previous comment and several other second-tier (possibly) book review sites. More than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep, see Beeccaynr's sources. I'm only seeing the reviews Oaktree found, which are both about the same book - this doesn't satisfy the typical WP:NAUTHOR rule of thumb of "multiple notable books". I'm just getting bookshop and database listings for The New American Wedding. nb that she published that as Diane Meier Delaney. If anyone finds more reviews, I'm happy to take a second look, ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviews and other sources can help develop the article and support WP:AUTHOR notability. There is 2010 interview-based coverage of her novel The Season of Second Chances in the Connecticut Post, the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews, as well as Hoover, Danise, The Booklist; Vol. 106, Iss. 15, (Apr 1, 2010): 24. ProQuest 235598289 and "The Season of Second Chances", Kane, Julie, Library Journal, 03630277, 3/1/2010, Vol. 135, Issue 4 (via the Wikipedia Library Literary Reference Center Plus); there is also 2002 wedding coverage in The New York Times with some biographical information; for The New American Wedding book, there is a Publishers Weekly review (her author name is listed as Diane Meier Delaney), and a review from Ebster, Deborah M. Library Journal; Vol. 130, Iss. 17, (Oct 15, 2005): 76. ProQuest 196841191. Courtesy ping Asilvering. Beccaynr (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck, I specifically checked PW?! Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So did I, but only managed to find it on the Wikipedia Library, then searched again online. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (as nom). Thanks for finding those sources. If no one else adds them to the article, I'll get to it in a couple of days. Tacyarg (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep per WP:HEY IFF the sources that are promised to be added are actually added. Until then, I request the AfD be re-listed. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus for keep as GNG established with the addition of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarMate

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

Unnotable company. ~~All of the sources listed are affiliated with the site in some way.~~The first source is the company's homepage, the second is of an affiliate, while the last two are dead links. Even worser, this site has virtually no news coverage and was created by a one-purpose account. Interestingly, if you look in the article creator's talk page, it was actually speedy deleted but remade. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase Innovate Smarter in the article is a tagline from the products home page, so there is clearly some form of copypasta going on. More importantly, NN per nom MNewnham (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this entity, there's another one with the same name using ChatGPT technology that pops up in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. English-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Zitong; Patra, Braja; Yaseen, Ashraf; Zhu, Jie; Sabharwal, Rachit; Roberts, Kirk; Cao, Tru; Wu, Hulin (2023-06-04). "Scholarly recommendation systems: a literature survey". Knowledge and Information Systems. 65. Springer-Verlag London: 4446–4447. doi:10.1007/s10115-023-01901-x.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate, a social research management tool launched in 2007 was used in 4 publications. It has more than 70,000 research groups created by researchers for their own projects, collaboration, and communication. As a platform for presenting publication research outputs, ScholarMate automatically collects scholarly related information about researchers’ output from multiple online resources. These resources include multiple online databases such as Scopus, one of the largest abstract and citation databases for peer-reviewed literature, including scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. ScholarMate uses aggregated data to provide researchers with recommendations on relevant opportunities based on their profiles."
  2. Xu, Jie; Yuan, Xiaoqun (2013-04-01). "Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 93. doi:10.1087/20130205. ISSN 0953-1513.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate (www.scholarmate.com) is another good example of dotcom companies playing a role in scolarly communication. ScholarMate is a professional research social network website whose aim is to promote research collaboration and information sharing. Inspired by Facebook and LinkedIn, ScholarMate collects personal research output through the Internet and sets up an entry of unified access to all online academic information for all users. By creating a profile page on ScholarMate, researchers can manage publications, build links with friends and colleagues, recommend funding and career opportunities, as well as disseminate reseach outputs to increase impacts and citations. Lanched in August 2012, the website now has more than 20,000 registered users and the number is increasing."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Yaokun 张耀坤; Wu, Rui 吴瑞; Wang, Chaozhou 汪朝州 (January 2022). "我国本土学术社交网络科研之友的个案分析：困境与对策" [A Case Study of the Domestic Academic Social Networking Site ScholarMate in China: Dilemma and Countermeasures] (PDF). 高校图书馆工作 [Library Work in Colleges and Universities] (in Chinese). Hunan Provincial Department of Education [zh]. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-7845.2022.01.009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
    The abstract notes: "This paper conducts a case study of ScholarMate, which is the earliest and the largest academic social networking site in China. The analysis results show that ScholarMate has a relatively accurate positioning and has formed a unique business model, but its user activation has been low for a long time, suggesting that the users’ continuous use needs to be improved. Clarifying that users of academic social networking sites are motivated primarily by acquiring academic information, it defines the core value of academic social networking sites as helping to identify the most valuable content for users quickly and accurately through social relations. Based on this, corresponding countermeasures are put forward from three aspects: resources, information discovery and users."
  2. Xu, Zhimin 许志敏 (2018). "提高我国学术社交网络的国际传播能力——基于ResearchGate与"科研之友"等的比较研究" [Improving the International Communication Capabilities of China's Academic Social Networks—a Comparative Study Based on Researchgate and "Scholarmate"]. 科技与出版 [Science-Technology & Publication] (in Chinese) (7): 26–32. doi:10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.2018.07.006. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Tsinghua University Press.
    The abstract notes: "文章选取Research Gate和我国"科研之友"等作为案例进行比较研究,发现我国学术社交网络在定位、运营与发展上存在一些问题,如缺失全球化的运营理念与发展定位;用户规模和用户的国际化程度较低且用户的黏性不够;内容生产缺乏有效的激励机制和激励手段等。针对这些问题,提出一些对策建议。"
    From Google Translate: "The article selects ResearchGate and China's "ScholarMate" as cases for comparative study and finds that there are some problems in the positioning, operation and development of China's academic social networks, such as the lack of global operation concepts and development positioning; user scale and user characteristics. The degree of internationalization is low and user stickiness is not enough; content production lacks effective incentive mechanisms and incentives. In response to these problems, some countermeasures and suggestions are put forward."
  3. Liu, Xianhong 刘先红; Li, Gang 李纲 (2016). "科研社交网络的推荐系统对比分析" [Comparative Analysis of Recommender Systems of Research Social Networking Service]. 图书情报工作 [Library and Information Service] (in Chinese). 60 (9). Chinese Academy of Sciences: 116–122. doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.09.016.
    The abstract notes: "This paper compares the recommender systems of four research social networking services of ResearchGate, Academia, Scholarmate and Scholat, from four aspects of recommending item, recommending strategy, cold start scheme and user preference learning method. [Result/conclusion] It finds that the recommender system of research social networking service of China has a obvious gap compared with foreign counterparts in above aspects. The problems include the fewer recommending items, insufficiency recommending strategies, poor effects of cold start, and weak abilities of user preference learning. Finally, it puts forwards some measures to solve these problems."
    The article notes: "2007 年正式上线的科研之友，虽然规模要小于 ResearchGate 和 Academia，但目前注册会员也达到250万之多 ... 科研之友和学者网则是我国两个典型的科研社交网络。本文选取这4 个科研社交网络，从推荐项目、推荐策略、冷启动方案和用户偏好学习4个方面进行对比。... 我国的科研之友有一个“同行专家”推荐服务，从其提示语“根据您的个人信息推荐的专家”可以清楚地知道该服务的作用，但笔者在多个不同的时间经多次调整个人信息，推荐结果始终显示“没有符合条件的专家记录”;“发现群组”“学术期刊”“科学基金”这3 个推荐项目也存在同样的问题。这说明科研之友的推 ...""
    From Google Translate: "ScholarMate, officially launched in 2007, although smaller in scale than ResearchGate and Academia, currently has 2.5 million registered members... ScholarMate and Scholat are two typical scientific research social networks in my country. This article selects these four scientific research social networks and compares them from four aspects: recommended projects, recommendation strategies, cold start solutions and user preference learning. ... Our country's ScholarMate has a "Peer Expert" recommendation service. From its prompt "Experts recommended based on your personal information" you can clearly understand the role of this service, but the author has experienced it many times at many different times. After adjusting personal information for this time, the recommendation results always show "No qualified expert records"; the same problem also exists in the three recommended projects of "Discovery Group", "Academic Journal" and "Science Fund". This shows that the recommendation of friends of scientific research...""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ScholarMate (Chinese: 科研之友) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need assessment of whether new sources located help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources provided by User:Cunard establish notability. Marquisate (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gitit (software)

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

No significant and reliable coverage; fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. BilledMammal (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barats and Bereta. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bereta

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

Redirect to Barats and Bereta. There are no reliable sources talking about this person outside the context of the show he was a part of. This page was already redirecting to there before, but someone decided to remove the redirect. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Internet, and United States of America. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, Montana, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Barats and Bereta seems to be notable, so it's reasonable. Better Nuncio (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barats and Bereta, isn't notabale enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity Party Youth League

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG, no non-wiki mentions online, no mentions in newspaper archives even in relation to parent party. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost always delete the stubs of youth arms of minor parties. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialists (Sweden, 1987)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG, no mention in indexed newspaper archive. No mentions online, only mention of predecessor is an article on marxistarkiv.se which doesn't even mention it by name. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, no sources — Czello ^(music) 21:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost always delete the stubs of very small, minor parties. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dobrovlyany

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

The subject of this article lack significant coverage in reliable sources, with only one primary source being cited, while I haven't been able to find any mention of it in my other sources. Not only that, but this article is plagiarising the one source it does cite: the body of the article is ripped almost word-for-word from page 236 of Viktor Bilash's book. On top of that, the title of this article isn't accurate at all: nowhere in the cited source nor in the article does it claim that this took place in "Doborvlyany" (the only towns by this name are entirely located in the far west of Ukraine), it says it took place around Yanisol. This article is broken on so many levels, from factual inaccuracy to plagiarism to notability, I think it needs to be deleted ASAP. Grnrchst (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thought I'd should include text from Bilash's book (translated from Russian) for the sake of demonstrating the plagiarism:

We had to eliminate Shkuro's corps in our rear. The 13th Army did not have a strong fist, and Shkuro occupied the Hryshyne district in the rear of the 13th Army with impunity. Then Shkuro turned from Hryshyne to our rear. Everything had to be sacrificed to save the front. And the headquarters of the 2nd Brigade of the Rebel Division immediately threw the 9th Greek Regiment, withdrawn from the village of Beshev, and the 12th Cavalry Regiment towards the White troops that had broken through.

On 21 May, they met in the village of Yanisol on the Mokri Yaly River. The fate of the front depended on the outcome of the battle, so our commanders paid special attention to the manoeuvring and fire of the regiment. It must be said that the 9th Regiment consisted mainly of Greeks from the Yanisol district, where the Shkurovtsy had managed to massacre their relatives and Soviets. Guided by a sense of revenge, they pounced on Yanisol like lions, dragging Cossacks out of their houses into the street and shooting them.

But the hour was not good. From the direction of the villages of Komar, Konstantin and Bagatyr, new regiments of Shkuro appeared. Naturally the forces were not equal, and in addition there was a lack of ammunition. However, the regiment fought fiercely for a whole day, and at the end could not withstand and began to retreat. The Shkurovtsy were attacking, our cavalry regiment was counterattacking. Our cavalry regiment counterattacked, giving the infantry regiment a chance to retreat to Kermenchik.

The insurgents defended their families, their huts, were unanimous, as the units consisted of fellow villagers. There were no cowards. And the fighting was terrible. There were no wounded or prisoners.

The regimental commander Morozov was cut down, and with him lay down and all six hundred cavalrymen. The infantry, exhausted, having used up their cartridges, parried with bayonets, until at last, at the village of Kermenchik. Kermenchik was not surrounded and completely cut down. Only Kompolka and the rest of 400 men managed to escape and only they survived, all the others were killed.

So our two regiments were gone. The Shkurovtsy, having suffered serious losses, slowed down and apparently rested in order to attack again.

All that has really been changed is the perspective, from Bilash's first person account to a deceptive third person perspective. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to nom's arguments, checking the contributions of the creator of the article, it gives me the impression that some things are probably wrong with their contributions. Tehonk (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case, this is confusing to any editor (it was to me), I closed this AFD with a "Delete" closure and then an article about a different person with the same name was moved to this page title. Then THAT article was nominated for deletion. So, this AFD was closed properly and there is a third AFD about a subject with this name that was just started today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

The cartoonist does not have any significant coverage. No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. And now it lacks WP:SIGCOV. The first nomination is so old.XpediaF1 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. XpediaF1 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Evaluation showed that one of the source is a blog, cuttingchai.com and this fails reliability. Two other sources simply have reference about the subject, belittling the politicians on the anniversary of attack on Indian Parliament. That's about it. There is no significant coverage on the subject itself, notable enough to have an article of its own. RangersRus (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage that justify subject's notability. He seems notable only for a minor old event held a decade ago. Macbeejack ☎ 12:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Casino (film)

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

Sources 1-3 are IMDB-like movie databases. Source 4 is a personal blog about movie reviews, which is not created by a well-known movie critic. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few references from reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since sources have been added, I withdraw my request for deletion and the administrator can close this discussion. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Mutton

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

I don't think his musical career meets WP:MUSICBIO. Could find no significant coverage under his name or nickname. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Inadequate sources. GMH Melbourne (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above points. The sources do not demonstrate WP:GNG, nor is there sustained coverage. Editing84 (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost always delete contestants on reality TV shows, except for win/place/show. This guy (pardon the pun) came in 9th. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reviewers. A Newsbank database search failed to find any WP:RSs, with the most recent article being 2013, in the regional newspaper The Gold Coast Bulletin, which fleeting mentions his involvement in a Year 5 school play as a primary school sports teacher (and Australian Idol finalist). I can't see this meeting WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and if it was going to, then it should have by now, some 14 years since his Australian Idol appearance. Cabrils (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Toyota transmissions#TX-series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota TX-Series Transmission

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

Declined 6 times and then rejected at WP:AFC moved by COI creator to mainspace, fails WP:PRODUCT. A before finds no independent coverage of the product and the article relies on primary Toyota sources. Possible re-direct? Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#TX-series. I tried to find GNG sources earlier when I was looking this over and didn't see any. That page has it's own issues but I think they are resolvable. Even absent the sourcing issues, from a WP:NOPAGE perspective I'm not sure this was a good idea in the first place. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions, I don't see this passing WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Encoded Talk to me! 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TX transmission section seems the best idea. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#TX-series: Fails WP:NPRODUCT, insufficient coverage by reliable secondary sources. User3749 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we can have articles about cars, articles about the engines in those cars, but can't have articles about the transmissions in those cars? Make it make sense. This article expands upon existing articles, specifically, “List of Toyota Transmissions.” It follows the same structure as existing articles that are closely related. These “sister” articles have been in use for almost 2 decades with zero issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12DionneJ (talk • contribs)

Sure we can have articles about transmissions BUT they need to be supported by independent secondary sources, that's how Wikipedia works. If there are other poorly sourced articles about transmissions then they probably need to be deleted too. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All additional sources would just be repeating what the primary sources state. It's a build spec, not something that is subjective. It's an objective fact. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally how everything is the automotive world works. All aftermarket Electronic Service Information websites/sources, (like AllDATA, Motologic, Mitchell's ProDemand, etc) get their info from the manufacturers. We're not talking about horsepower and torque ratings of an engine or advertised fuel economy. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#tx-series: As an WP:ATD. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#tx-series: WP:ATD and per nom. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#tx-series per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Toyota transmissions#tx-series as topic fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrine Matiasek

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

Associate professor with an h-index of 8 according to Scopus, or 6 according to Google, not seeing anything that might take her past WP:NPROF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, and United States of America. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page reads like a resume. Associate professor with little impact, WP:MILL and doesn't fulfill any WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Broc (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has good citation counts for one publication, but she is in the middle position among the authors of that one, and nothing else stands out as evidence for WP:PROF notability. That leaves a potential pass of WP:GNG instead, based on the "media appearances" section. Several of the sources listed there are non-independent (published by CSU Chico, her employer). Otherwise, we have three local news stories in NSPR and the Chico Enterprise-Record. Of these, "Chico State professors publish Camp Fire water pollution study" has little depth of coverage of Matiasek, spending more of its attention on her coauthors and their study. "Blue Dot" is a local radio station interview with the subject, not a story about her. And "Students study" is, as the title suggests, mostly about a student research project, with only incidental mention of Matiasek's role in directing the students. I don't think that's enough depth and prominence of coverage for GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too early with no real verification of notability as yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BEMET

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject also lacks significant coverage. Also seems like the editor of the page has close connection with the subject. Can't find any RS about anything written. Rydex64 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rydex64 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the others. Considered a redirect to the famous Teapacks but the connection is probably not sufficiently substential. gidonb (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that redirecting to Teapacks would be unwarranted. Better Nuncio (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LoginRadius

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of page soft deleted in 2023 due to minimal participation in AfC. Company does not meet WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Not surprising that there are quite a few recent references from blogs and non-reliable sources. Indicative of a campaign that would be similar to NEWSORGINDIA in my experience. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are unreliable outlets, trivial mentions, or both. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find reliable & significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. popodameron ⁠talk 21:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised by this nomination. Here are some of the better publications and some analysis:

- Vancouver Sun: It is lengthy article from a reliable publication. It has coverage on the company, what it does, how many employees ideas and details of their office space. There are some quotations that can be considered primary, but if you eliminate the quotation there are still a few paragraphs of original content

- CEO Online - This is an industry publication. Peer reviewed articles are considered good for notability. While not particularly lengthy, the content is about three paragraphs, offering a substantial amount of information.

- LiveMint.com - This is lengthy article from a reliable source

- biometricupdate.com - Another industry publication, as it is peer reviewed, it should be considered to be a good citation for notability.

- softwarereviews.com - here is an in-depth review from an industry research website. It has no affiliate links, so it should be considered reliable.

- computerweekly.com - This is not entirely about them, as it also mentions another company that does similar things. However there is quite a bit of info on them, and the company is mentioned 4 times.

- inc42.com - I am aware that some funding articles are seen as routine news, but this one is not just routine as the journalist have gone in detail about what company does. There are some quotations, but if you eliminate those, we still have a few paragraphs of info about the company.

- betakit.com - Same above comments apply here

- securityweek.com - Same comments as inc42 apply here.Maxcreator (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Sun: This article is almost entirely about the company's office and not about the company itself, which is not sufficient for NCORP.
CEO Online [sic]: I don't know why you believe this is some kind of a peer-reviewed publication, because it doesn't seem to be at all. The author is described as a "freelance writer."
LiveMint.com: Hardly lengthy and hardly reliable.
biometricupdate.com: Also no indication of this being peer-reviewed.
softwarereviews.com: It has no affiliate links, so it should be considered reliable. That's not how reliability works. Take a look at WP:RS.
computerweekly.com: Not significant coverage.
inc42.com, betakit.com, securityweek.com: Not enough significant coverage about the company and indeed mostly funding.

popodameron ⁠talk 02:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the resources seems routine PR and it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORGCRITE. Macbeejack ☎ 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; sources are mostly routine or mentions with hardly any GNG sources out there. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Greene

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG and has been in CAT:NN for 4 years. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Belmont, Virginia, but it might not fit well to have information on it there. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a potential to merge some of the content, especially about the railroad station, but the sourcing here is so poor (archived Geocities site) someone will need to re-source that information, so an ATD doesn't really make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just another housing development article that's been coatracked.James.folsom (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What links here shows Stone Bridge High School and Virginia State Route 659, but they are no good as redirect options Better Nuncio (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unofficial ranking, similar to many others 14 novembre (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Football, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unofficial is not a deletion rationale. Also, could someone confirm this page's history? It was kept in 2011 for passing GNG, but the history for the page only goes back to 2018. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unofficial it probably doesn't qualifiy for a Wikipedia article. Also, I can see that the article has been already reduced significantly removing excessive details, also due apparently to copyright reasons; but also because it was clearly way to detailed for a wikipedia article. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not provided a valid deletion rationale. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess. I consider it completely valid, in addition to having a very broad database of national team matches. Svartner (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The old article history can be found here. Messy move history. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner @Geschichte The valid deletion rationale is the following: the subject, in my opinion, does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. This because the ratings are an unofficial implementation of the Elo formula, similar to other unofficial existing rankings. World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess: not exactly. There is no IFFHS rating for national teams; if you mean the FIFA World Rankings the method is slightly different, instead it is practically identical (except for some football-specific adaptations, such as goal difference and home team advantage) to the Elo system used in chess. I consider it completely valid is a personal opinion, which is not relevant for WP:NPOV. I hope to have been clear about my arguments. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Football Elo Ratings. Giant Snowman 19:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman I don't think a discussion in 2011 is still relevant in 2024 14 novembre (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has sources. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's comment and evidence above. The age of sources isn't a valid reason to dismiss them out of hand. Anwegmann (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid deletion rationale given and no change in prior consensus. Specifically, I would say that this source and to an extent this source provide WP:GNG coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Grigsby

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

Sources here don't establish notability. Most sources present aren't reliable or independent, and those that are do not provide significant coverage:

LA Times only features one of her photos, no coverage on her
The Mercury News is just an interview and more about a website she launched than her
The Citizen is just a passing mention
The Guardian is also just a passing mention Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Technology, Internet, Switzerland, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i agree with the above - i first noticed this article was mostly written like marketing copy, almost certainly written by the subject or an associate, and she doesn't seem particularly notable in any of the sources Locust Valley (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR items are all I find, rest of the links are as explained in the nomination. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet general notability requirements based on the sources used, or elsewhere- I couldn't find anything better. I couldn't open the Mercury News one but note what has already been highlighted- that it's not about her. Editing84 (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behnke Ranch

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

I don't think this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Hines Interests Limited Partnership but I am not sure it really fits in that article. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the development of the ranch basically got absorbed as a development. A ranch usually becomes its own thing like Lakewood Ranch or Wellen Park. Going to say delete as it appears that the ranch ceases to exist. [4] [5] – The Grid (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can find no trace of this that is not a mention of the (potential) development; at the moment the article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for the relatively young neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable ranch getting made into a nonnotable house development. Why do we need this on Wikipedia?James.folsom (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Begbroke Science Park

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

I am not convinced that this is notable independent of Oxford University, there doesn't seemt o be the quality of sources for that. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Oxford University, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are over 200 direct hits for the subject in the Oxford Mail alone, see [6], with articles such as this one featuring usable coverage:Fifteen years of Begbroke Science Park. ResonantDis_tortion 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is extensive reporting available as noted above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps this article could be used for expansion?

https://www.costar.com/article/270065868/oxford-university-and-lgim-lodge-plans-for-giant-innovation-district-and-village Oliver Phile (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wcquidditch. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Barokk Hotel Promenád Győr

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

~~It doesn't seem to be notable as a hotel; a 17th-century building should be notable, but I couldn't find sources to confirm it. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. The building appears to be heritage listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Necrothesp is absolutely right. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sittwe (film)

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

I couldn't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and there's no evidence of meeting WP:NFILM. The only claim of notability is winning an award at a film festival, but the award alone isn't sufficiently significant or widely recognized to automatically confer notability. GSS ^💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes GNG. I added a few sources. Furthermore, nominated for deletion a mere 48 minutes after creation. this is extremely bad form IMO. Give the process a chance. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've referenced some offline sources that may not be readily accessible. Could you please elaborate on how these sources satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG? Additionally, could you provide further details regarding these sources? GSS ^💬 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not your research assistant.~~ These are RS and they support the facts cited to them. They're online although paywalled and I don't know how to link to them effectively or I would have. Central and Adams (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, there's no need to be rude. I didn't ask you to be my 'research assistant'. You cited offline sources without direct links to them, and I just wanted to understand how these sources satisfy the criteria of GNG. I've attempted to search for the titles of these sources but couldn't find anything online, let alone access their content. Hopefully, someone else can locate them and ascertain if they provide the independent and in-depth coverage required by GNG. GSS ^💬 17:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an article in The Boston Globe: "When nationalism goes awry". It's got two paragraphs on the documentary. Toughpigs (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Islam. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Irrawaddy source discussing its banning, backed with the sources already in the article, seem to meet both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG (and it seems to have been heavily shown at universities and otherwise discussed by academics which would support notability using the same sort of argument in WP:TEXTBOOKS). In addition to the sources originally in/added to the article/mentioned there's Rakhine Conflict Primarily Political, Not Religious, Seminar Told has coverage of both the release and the documentary and it's used as an example/reference point in The Rohingya Crisis. As a procedural note, I think waiting longer before AfD'ing this would have been preferable. And if this was done as part of NPP, the NPP guidelines are pretty clear to wait at least an hour before nominating for deletion in most cases WP:NPPHOUR. If there's any particular source the nom (or anyone) wants help accessing, saying which one(s) is helpful. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've been waiting for nearly an hour, just short by 10 minutes. There hasn't been any activity on the page since it was posted. While I'm somewhat convinced by the sources, I would appreciate it if someone could provide more detailed articles. The current ones only offer brief paragraphs and lack the depth required for the documentary. Thank you. GSS ^💬 18:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Irrawaddy article definitely meets WP:GNG as the primary topic of the article and discuss it beyond routine coverage, though I know WP:NFILM is a bit stricter and not in my area of expertise. From my cursory glance, the award (backed up by the Irrawaddy source) is one of the conditions for NFILM and I think i can meet the rest too with some of the following

Another source I found that I don't personally have access to from the Economist that discusses in some detail.There is this Stanford university screening with a panel discussion which may satisfy the university condition. There is also this VoA newscast about the film that I will add relevant info from to the article in about an hour when I can listen to the audio to translate (letting yall know since there seems to be some sort of time budget going on in this AfD)

I agree it would be nice for the author to be more specific with the sources cited like the two Mizzima articles I can't locate either. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EmeraldRange: regarding the time budget — this AfD discussion will be open for 7 days, unless the nominator withdraws it. You've got some time to improve the article, and thank you for doing that. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added some information now, but half of the cast is interviews with the directors, so I don't think it counts as significant secondary coverage for GNG, but the other sources already shows that it meets GNG. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here's the archived version of the Economist article that EmeraldRange pointed out. It's eight paragraphs specifically about Sittwe and another documentary, evaluating them in context with contemporary events. This clearly meets GNG. Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the newly cited sources, I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Thank you for including these additional sources. GSS ^💬 04:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aguamania

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some coverage at [7][8][9][10][11] per WP:GNG, but it isn't much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exclusively promotional as written. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be improved per WP:ATD. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent of sourcing for this article's subject would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Like it or not, there are dozens of articles about water-based amusement parks. This is no different from all the others MNewnham (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as per the sources above, and the fact it is supposedly only one of two water parks in Valenzuela Mr Vili talk 01:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Studio Art Center

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

It appears to be a run-of-the-mill school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I tried, but I can't find anything that could satisfy either WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NGEO. GSS ^💬 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New York. GSS ^💬 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, I similarly failed to find significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. Wikishovel (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 gnews hits says it all. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be another non-notable school. Better Nuncio (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above, lacking the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources we require. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kholova Fotima

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

I declined the CSD and now going through AFD. The neutrality of the article is disputed and was created as clear first level advert, even with seeing this. The editor created many drafts with has redirected to here. The sources seems unclear and being questioned. But the article fails WP: GNG, WP: ANYBIO, WP: SPORTSPERSON. Otuọcha (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Otuọcha (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Martial arts, and Tajikistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Just saw links. Rewriting should be better. The article from my research is notable. Otuọcha (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Olympiacos F.C. season

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

Pointless as the 2023-24 season is several months away from being done, Olympiacos' current league placement is not decided yet, the manager and staff may change, the player squad will certainly not be the same etc. It's important to stamp out the "need" to create articles that have no relevant content due to the event being too far in the future. Geschichte (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Greece. Shaws username . talk . 12:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Certainly will be a notable topic but does not need a main space article until there is more clarity on the 24-25 season, likely not until the 23-24 season finishes in May. Frank Anchor 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, but it will be relevant soon. SportingFlyer T·C 13:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify 14 novembre (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but will be in future. Giant Snowman 19:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Way too early. Anwegmann (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktimaan (film)

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

Fails per WP:NFF as principal photography has not started yet. Sid95Q (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Way too early for this. Film is scheduled to be released in 2026 The filming won't even begin till 2025 and the complete cast is yet to be finalized. There is not enough coverage as of now and so it fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per nom, it should be draftify. Not yet passes WP:NFF. Macbeejack ☎ 12:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnyphlo

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

Can't find sigcov for this musician. Also article is really POV and flowery, poorly sourced. toobigtokale (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I found this: [12], this [13], and this [14], but those are interviews and therefore not significant/secondary, and I'm not familiar with the reputations of the sources. If this does end up as a keep, it needs a complete rewrite as it is embarrassingly promotional in tone. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only a source from Facebook which doesn't count for notability. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Mospyne

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

This is a recreation of an article that previously existed on the Battle of Mospyne, which was already merged and redirected to Mospyne due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources.[15] This version is an almost identical translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article uk:Бій під Моспиним, albeit with less attention given to the sourcing, some examples of poor translation and even some factual errors. As this isn't substantially different from the earlier (now merged and redirected) article, and I'd argue even represents a downgrade in quality, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom's arguments. Tehonk (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Şöhret

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The sources are primary and not reliable, there is no in-depth independent SIGCOV. It is being cross-wiki spammed with different accounts/socks for several days and has clear COI/promotion issues. The creator has been blocked on trwiki for socking. Tehonk (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will let the general public decide the article's fate, however I am here to clear up I am not a sock. Never have never will be. I have had sock puppet investigations of me in the past and I am still here. The guy claiming I am has a history of blocking on impulse without following stipulated procedures. I am appealing the block because I am innocent on the Turkish Wiki. Serrwinner (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Science, Engineering, Aviation, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin's comment. For the purposes of the discussion at AfD, we need to focus on the merits of the article, not the contributors. If the concern is recent editors putting an undue glow on the account and putting the subject in their best light, that's an easy fix for editors. Please focus on more fundamental concerns, like whether the subject meets the above-linked notability standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. "Kimdir?" sources are generally of very low quality and there is a long-standing consensus on trwiki that they can't be used to establish notability. In this case those are the only third-party sources that exist. I don't really see a prominent claim to pass NPROF either. The influential scientists list took around 200,000 people into account, while AFAIK the actual number of scientists around the world is way higher. Anyway, this limited recognition doesn't translate into a high h-index. Very respectable person in his category and maybe even notable in a couple of years, but not now. Styyx (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. What are the "Kimdir?" sources that we are supposed to ignore, and please provide a link to specifics pages where their reliability has been debated; evidence please. If you can convince me I will change my vote. Beyond that, while his h-factor is not high if you compare it to others who list Aerospace as their focus it is not bad, i.e. the discipline adjusted h-factors is fair. He seems to be publishing in reputable journals with decent impact factors, not junk journals. (I definitely vote strong ignore to the accusations of socks/COI which have been thrown in without evidence and are clearly inappropriate.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on "Kimdir?" sources can be seen here. There is unanimous consensus that they can't be used to establish notability, and rough consensus to not even use them in articles at all. Note that this was the status quo even prior to this discussion.

On another note, while I didn't mention this in my initial statement, I very much share the sock/meat puppetry concerns regarding raised above and beyond, though this is not particularly relevant to this AfD. Styyx (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i had not come across these "Kimdir?" sources before. In my ignorance I viewed them as weak secondary. I have deleted them from the page, and will revise my vote to Weak delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't throw accusations, I simply stated a fact, the user was blocked for socking in another project for trying to create this, and that's a fact, such facts about the creators of articles can sometimes be relevant and noteworthy.

COI/promo tone of the article is not an accusation "thrown in without evidence" either, that's my comment about the state of the article. Stating such concerns is not "clearly inappropriate" (and it's not the first time such concerns have been stated about the same user, from December: Special:Diff/1191063344) Tehonk (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I told here as a person who reviewed (by its lexical meaning) the article both in Turkish and in English, sources didn't seem to be "satisfying since they were either primary or not 'about' the subject, such as listing the subject's name or mentioning incidentally". So I agree with the nominator, Tehonk, and Styyx above. Dr. Coal^Message 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Coal, please do not continue to misquote me, this is the second time. The link you provided is a selective excert from an old version. The full version should have been cited, not selective parts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ldm1954,

I cited what I wrote and it was really not that important since I've told here what I had to say. Full version is irrelevant after a point and would cause users' time to get wasted for nothing relevant to this discussion. C.Fred could also want to delete it from their talk page, so I wanted to provide a permanent link if there would be anyone concerning the whole matter. (If there are, they would also check the latter versions, I presume.) Anyways, this might be the right version to cite if you want your response to be included.

There is no need for high tension, and presumption of malice.

Best,

Dr. Coal^Message 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weakish delete, professorship is still too early-career, and it's alarming that ref 12, which I checked quickly to see if the top-2%-influential claim held water, doesn't seem to mention the subject. I admit I don't know how aerospace does orders of authorship, but it doesn't seem to be alphabetical, so if it's the traditional "first author did the work, last author is the professor" order, then the fact that most of the publications are middle-author doesn't give us much clue about the subject's independent academic record. We need a better demonstration of meeting NPROF, otherwise this could be a TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As far as I can tell the "most influential listing" placed him in position 200000 or so among some set of researchers. That doesn't seem especially noteworthy to me. That leaves his actual citation record, on which I see only two triple-digit citation counts (on Google Scholar), one of which is first-author and one of which is middle position among many authors. That's a good start, but not really enough to base a keep decision on, and beyond publicity from his employer that seems to be all we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Bourguiba

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

no reliable sources, only database entries found. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden. CptViraj (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Christopher

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

only interview sources, not independent. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can only find coverage for Christopher Lloyd, doing Doc Brown's lines from Back to the Future. Nothing for this individual Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boujenah

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

all reliable sources online are about his brother. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't mean to be rude, but can you please do a better check for this director? Such as a basic Google books search for example. And/or see WP:DIRECTOR, Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this. there are articles that mainly talk about his brother, but have enough coverage of him, so Wikipedia:DIRECTOR looks okay. withdrawing. could someone close? Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tunisia. CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this actually withdran or not? Why the relist? @User:Liz @User:Password1233210 --Ouro (blah blah) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough to build an article, [16], trival coverage but a mention [17], [18]. Here's some discussion of a film [ https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/images/1987-n31-32-images1076311/22081ac/abstract/] and [19] but it won't open for me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cherry

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

no sourcing found that can support notability. only database entries/wikipedia copies. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. CptViraj (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles look like it got information from IMDb, which is a not recommended source, but the author decided not to add the reference that they did use it. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources-⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan

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

I previously erroneously believed that this person was the same person as Khaled bin Mohamed Al Nahyan, now the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. Since they are in fact different people, I don’t think this Khalid passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

2601:249:9301:D570:E2:2A03:BDFF:6814 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. As above. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. We don't create articles on people simply because they are members of a ruling/royal family. Independent notability must be established. Keivan.f^Talk 21:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Margarita Simonyan. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobroedka

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

this is really not notable at all. It's about petty conflict between Alexei Navalny and Margarita Simonyan (the articles referenced are mostly about "why Alexei Navalny calls Margarita Simonyan beaver-eater"). So it's an article about Internet drama, is that necessarily notable? Part of the article isn't even about this term, just about Simonyan being petty to Navalny. The article is also very badly written and meant to promote a certain point of view, which is not what Wikipedia is about. At best this might be redirected to Simonyan's page. Jaguarnik (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is both reliably sourced and due then it can be merged with Margarita Simonyan and redirected. Otherwise delete. We don't need two articles about the same person, one under her real name and another under a nick-name. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Margarita Simonyan - I'm concerned about this as a POV fork, and see no reason we can't cover this meme on Simonyan's page in its own section. Suriname0 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Shavit Artson

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

while finding sources, i could only find self-biographies and some articles written by them online. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Judaism, Germany, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep
- Article about him in Jewish Journal[20]
- Starred review in Publishers' Weekly of God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology[21]
- A journal article about his work[22] --Jahaza (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some more academic articles discussing his work: [23], [24], [25] [26], [27] (yes it's on academia.edu but it's a copy of a journal article). The article does need to be completely rewritten, but I don't think WP:TNT is justified. Apocheir (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New sources look fine, including the article about him and the book reviews. Easily passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1888 Albion football team

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the team played only two games (a third game was cancelled), both games received WP:SIGCOV. I've added summaries of the games. Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Buranelli

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and the sourcing is not up to scratch. The first source is an advertising website, the second provides no significant coverage, the third is mostly an interview which doesn’t contribute towards notability as a primary source (the website also appears to be unreliable). The fourth source again lacks significant coverage, and the fifth appears to be unreliable. A WP:BEFORE turned up virtually no reliable coverage, such as the FilmFreeway forum source and only brief mentions in books. I could see no particularly viable redirect targets per WP:ATD. The Night Watch (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Advertising, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Technology

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

This article describes aspects of the use of concrete without any significant encyclopedic content. There are already pages which go into details, this stub serves no real purpose. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnecessary article worthy to be merged to other existing topics. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Holmer

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

Promotional page created by blocked editor. No evidence page passes WP:AUTHOR--being nominated for an award does not garner assumed notability. WikiLibrary search did not return any WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a simple google search reveals several book reviews in WP:RS: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Visual arts, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Geschichte's sources are all good, but they're short. It's too early in his career for more substantial coverage. But when I was looking for more, I found that at least one of his books have been translated into English. Here are its reviews in Kirkus [33] and PW [34]. I'm confident there will be more. But because it's children's literature, I'm also confident they'll be short. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominee for both the August Prize and the Beskow Plaquette, with substantial coverage in mainstream Swedish press. The article is weak, but notability is not a problem, not nearly. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brief reviews as given in a few other comments have been found, but we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this passes "has won significant critical attention". /Julle (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clear pass of GNG, while not respecting NAUTHOR. Substantial sources found on Google worth adding onto the article. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO. And WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archibus

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NOTADVERT. Sources in article are non-reliable (self-published) or press releases. Potential sources are similar press releases and are also not reliable, and thus don't indicate notability; others are simply not WP:RS. Article currently seems to serve as a advertisement of the company's services ("made a strategic growth investment", product catalogue). Searches for other sources are only of one-word passing mentions (such as "software like Archibus, <other product 2>, <product 3>, etc.") and do not contain any significant coverage. WhoAteMyButter (🏔️_talk│❄️^contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Products. WhoAteMyButter (🏔️_talk│❄️^contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the basic criteria for GNG, not sufficient sourcing Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find a source with significant coverage that is not PR. popodameron ⁠talk 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kartik Research

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

Fails to pass WP:ORG The sources are not more than an interview of a person and nothing to do with independent sources of the organisation. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most sources in this article focuses more on the founder and does not focus the company itself in detail, and so WP:SIGCOV cannot be achieved. Google search results shows news relating to its "FW23" as well as a 2024 festival in Paris, but not that deep. While an entry on fhe founder can be created, I believe that the article will also be brought up to AfD for notability issues. Fails notability gutdelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG. Coverage talking about the company's founder. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Griselda Vegas

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

PROD was contested. Non-notable person, fails WP:NBEAUTY, having not won one of the Big Four beauty pageants, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG as well. Sources found no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Venezuela. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost Speedy, I can't find any secondary references at all MNewnham (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The arguments to delete are based on P&G. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTHC-LD

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined without a rationale. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station is notable only at the local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marquez Branson

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

Non-notable football player. Never actually played in the NFL, can't find anything in newspapers.com outside of basic transactions and a handful of game recaps, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Wizardman 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, with the sources added my stance is a neutral one, I don't feel comfortable saying outright keep or delete. Wizardman 22:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Wizardman 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom, unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG [35][36][37][38][39][40] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that (2 3 and 4) is run of the mill reports, but the first and last (5/6) one might be enough. I'll wait and see how others feel. Wizardman 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have enough in sources offered for WP:BASIC. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source listed above is based almost entirely on quotes, the last is also interview-heavy and lacks depth. Both are from spring/summer 2010, so fail SUSTAINED. This article is basically sourced to local mentions of his college play and hype that didn't materialize, which is not sufficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. SUSTAINED only appears to discount biographical articles when they are only discussed significantly "in the context of a single event" – as we've got in-depth Denver Post articles from May and August, as well as an in-depth Associated Press feature from July, each of which are not accurately described as "entirely quotes" – we have enough for a pass of WP:GNG, despite it being weak. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to BLP1E regards whether to create a bio vs an event article, not simply notability, but anyway both pieces of coverage are on his practice squad activity which is one context. And I said based on quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A three-year practice squad stint ≠ "one event"; that's similar to saying that a "football career is one event" – now, if the only coverage was two stories on "Branson signed to practice squad" from the same approximate date, then I would agree with you. However, this is sigcov across four months from different major outlets, which is not accurately characterized IMO as "entirely based on quotes" – that is enough for a pass of GNG in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pieces on the team's hype of Branson as a potential replacement for Scheffler, regurgitating some of the same quotes, with almost nothing of substance to say on him. Also the May 19 piece says he's "off the practice squad" now, the July 31 piece claims he's on the practice squad, so what's that about. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists is kinda ridiculous I mean I'll withdraw my stance if this gets this closed. Wizardman 02:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the evidence that the subject only received coverage over a four-month span, on the same topics, and so fails SUSTAINED? JoelleJay (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough for a biography. Mentioning his name in the three season articles (see What links here) seems more than enough. Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided by WikiOriginal-9. While the first four are more-or-less routine, the last two add enough SIGCOV to barely get Mr. Branson past WP:GNG. Passes WP:SUSTAINED as articles presented encompass a several-month window in 2010. Frank Anchor 15:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSDI-LD

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Article was part of a bulk AfD last year that closed as no consensus, but that was more about other articles in the bundle than this one. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: another run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate station started in the 2010s without anything local to note, no significant coverage (nor much prospect for any), and so on. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. The obscurity and recency of the subject, in this particular topic area, guarantee it will not meet the WP:GNG. A redirect at least ensures there is some sort of entry for it somewhere. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZTS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent, secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Basenga

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. This also includes my searches under "Sophie Kadima." All that I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeepney TV acquired programming

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

Fails NLIST and NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. // Timothy :: talk 02:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly notable as a list. We have articles like this for dozens of networks. I know OTHERSTUFF isn't usually a winning AfD position, but in this case it is. If you disagree try nominating e.g. List of HBO original programming for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Programming lists are exclusively original programming, not acquired programming. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does this apply to acquired programming but not original? It doesn't make the distinction at all. In fact it specifically excluded lists of historical programming, which is what this article is. Central and Adams (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and the subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as the entries are not described as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Congress of Republicans

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

I don't see any reason to think this organization is notable. It doesn't seem like their initial split from the party was very widely-covered, and they certainly haven't gotten much news coverage in the last decade. It seems like they're basically just a minor Republican club, and those don't automatically get Wikipedia pages. Also, appropos of nothing, this article is written like a press release. I'd support either a delete or a redirect to California Republican Party. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Republican Party (United States) organizations and Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States by political party - I don't think these are split from the overall national party, or even state party, as much as they are local groups of the same party. They cater to the local area Republicans, much like fan clubs. The ultimate goal would be to boost the overall state and national parties, but focusing on local politics — Maile (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I misread the article and thought they split from the CAGOP when in reality they split from the California Republican Assembly. That actually strengthens the case to delete this page, as the California Republican Assembly doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I certainly don't see any indication that the California Congress of Republicans is as notable as other groups on that page like Log Cabin Republicans or the Freedom Caucus. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Republican Assembly? — Maile (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWVW-LD

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage is trivial at best. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Topic is a part of a subset of obscure (but encyclopedic) information about an obscure subject. If we are to delete this page, it will create a hole in that subset of information. So either merge this (and all of the other pages in that subset that are effectively no different from this) into some larger page, or keep MNewnham (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fontão River

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

Article unsourced since 2009. Searching Rio Fontão or Fontão river in GNews, GBooks and GNewspaper Archives did not turn any results. Google Maps shows a place called Fontão which is near a river called Limia instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Portugal. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Creator is blocked as a sockpuppet --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a single reference in this blog site but the link through to Google maps doesn’t show a river at that location, so it seems to be a non notable creek. Mccapra (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G5 and possibly A3. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure its a good idea to G5 an article created in 2009 even though it does meet G5 I think over 14 years and 4 months is enough to say the statutes of limitations may have expired though I'm at the same time not really opposed give its still a substub. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substub with zero context other than an entire country + Tobias Conradi sockpuppet as creator (c.f. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?) = delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Osmanoğlu family without prejudice to changing the redirect target if consensus to do so is reached on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nilhan Osmanoglu

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

Delete: as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. Skynxnex (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Osmanoğlu family: She is particularly known for minor controversies revolving around the present-day Osmanoğlu family. Nothing else. Aintabli (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Galatasaray_Islet. There seems to be no information of value in the article apart from that. MNewnham (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consensus on a target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osmanoğlu family. (By the way, she is the only listed sultana there with an individual article.). -- 03:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Mustafa

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

~~Just brief mentions, lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG criteria. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like we're cleaning up non-notable members of the Punjab Bar Council today. MNewnham (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage. 41.99.221.13 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: He is a prominent lawyer leader since long and he is now elected member of National Assembly of Pakistan in february 2024. see https://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=12_02_2024_002_005 175.107.24.65 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as an MP. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One newspaper article in Urdu language has already been translated into English. Has 4 references from major newspapers of Pakistan, they all seem to work now. In my view, meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Meets WP:NPOL as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan: Politicians ... who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Central and Adams (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree to keep, since after nomination he was elected as new MP on 2024 elections, we can now keep the article, attest update on the infobox is required. CSMention269 (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact he was elected before the nomination. Central and Adams (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Liz: asked to revert my closure, have done so. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL, member of national parliament, overwhelming community consesus that presumed notability applies. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep MNA.
Panam2014 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Ejaz Baig

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

~~Non-notable advocate. Vice chairpersons of Punjab Bar Council are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Delete Not nearly enough notable sources. Slowtationjet (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A 9 year old stub MNewnham (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MNewnham. Lacks significant coverage. 41.100.198.103 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NLAWYER and GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as Vice Chairman of state/province body Punjab Bar Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.27.30 (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more policy based input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Like Asrar-ul-Haq Mian, there is some news coverage about her election, but this is somewhat expected. WP:POLITICIAN is not applicable to a professional lawyer. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra de Blas

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

Only 1 article links to this. A mere 2 google news hits. and google books hits are 1 line mentions. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A low controversy. long career, respected environmental journalist who used to host a radio show on a national radio broadcaster. My Google search returned 19,000 hits. MNewnham (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, but you emphasized 2 hits as if this person was invisible on the internet which is clearly not the case. My other points are much more relevant though. MNewnham (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do you have sources that are WP:SIGCOV and establish notability? LibStar (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Environment, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are multiple issues. Wikipedia is not a venue for resumes. As a BLP sourcing requirements are more stringent. Maybe I am location biased hamstrung but couldn't find sources that are not resume related. At 19,000 hits there would certainly appear to be enough to cite sources on the article that would advance notability. I didn't get that return. Wikipedia demands a "high degree of sensitivity" on BLP's and the second lead paragraph of WP:BLP repeats WP:BURDEN. This feels like a person being elevated to notability while lacking sources that actually advance notability. Most people in the world would love a Wikipedia article so much they will pay to have one created. Lack of sources means the entire lead section would need to be removed as I must have missed sourced coverage in the article body so that the lead would be a "summary". The lack of such sources does indicate the article Fails WP:JOURNALIST. What we usually see is the author, or another editor wishing the article kept, providing some sources on the article that we refer to a HEY. The difference between a resume (job listing) and a Biography: Detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of their life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality. The article lacks significant and independent coverage in reliable sources for a BLP. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for whoever reviews this, https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=alexandra%20de%20blas is interesting to see, regardless of whatever the comments above might infer, or whichever direction... JarrahTree 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : To JarrahTree. I am surmising you are showing a Trove "search engine" using Alexandra de Blas but I cannot read the old pages shown and I would have to see if I have access. Also I see a key word of "Alexandra" being offered but not "Alexandra de Blas". However, a "search engine", at this point, does not help to show me anything particular to, from, or about the subject to advance notability and this is a BLP. If the subject did have articles listed in Trove, meaning there might be original articles somewhere, this might offer evidence of such notability. I saw that three of the authors articles were deleted as well, as was one that was a draft. If I am not mistaken all of them were because of sourcing, so to repeat, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to stem notability concerns. I have been trying to add sources I find to some of the authors articles because apparently it is almost a year since the last edit (March 3, 2023) so I found no help in the source. Maybe someone would have better luck -- Otr500 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I have no idea why you cannot access trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/484872 - or indeed call it strange names: Trove is an online aggregator - and should be utilised in afds involving Australian subjects, as google based systems do not necessarily collect aspects of Australian material JarrahTree 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like LibStar and Otr500 I was unable to find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I checked WP:LIBRARY (EBSCOhost, ProQuest, newspapers.com) and reviewed the sources already in the article. The best source is the one from the introduction to Green Power, which talks about the attempted suppression of her thesis, but on its own it's not enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, or WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added a few sources to the article, and have searched for secondary coverage of her work to help support WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability; there appears to have been some news coverage of her early academic work, both of the initial attempted suppression and eventual publication, but how or whether this was connected to the subsequent Mount Lyell Remediation and Research and Demonstration Program is not clear from sources I found or could access. I also found her Earthbeat work cited in various sources on GBooks, but have not found commentary or reviews in reliable sources about this work. As to her later work, I found a speaker bio and her website. I was not able to verify awards to help add context to the article and do not think these are sufficiently notable critical recognition to support notability on their own. Overall, to develop a neutral and balanced encyclopedia article according to the notability guidelines, we need more sustained, independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Setúbal shooting

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

All the coverage I found is from the day of the event or the month after. Does not meet WP:EVENT for having an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about it beyond the month after either, to show that it's WP:SUSTAINED or had a WP:EFFECT. Shaws username . talk . 02:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Per WP:NOTNEWS CSMention269 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean... CSMention269 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The murder of three people in Europe is unusual enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage beyond the few days of discussion about the event, the perpetrator, etc. Lettlre (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lyman

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the secondary sources is about the subject. Articles by the subject are not proof of notability. MarioGom (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, South America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to be an automotive journalist, but nothing about him as a person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ANYBIO,WP:JOURNALIST MNewnham (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

方 (disambiguation)

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

Does not meaningfully disambiguate between several articles, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Remsense诉 00:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. Remsense诉 00:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see why this is necessary as the symbol is Chinese and this is the English wikipedia. (Not putting transwikify as the Chinese wiki already has a disambiguation for this symbol.) GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 01:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessary disambiguation page. We’re not Japanese wiki and it’s just a collection of random unrelated things that don’t have the character in their title. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Graystorm, this is English Wikipedia after all. SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is deleted, the hatnote at Radical 70 should be modified to link to Fang (surname), as 方 would be a valid WP:RLOTE for the surname if the article about the radical did not exist. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there are valid redirects whose names are non-Latin script, and even disambiguation pages are okay as long as the terms require disambiguation. But thjis is not one of those cases. Remsense诉 16:52, 26 February 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.

Hosta

Recent Comments