Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sudden Death (band)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, can't find any secondary sources. Unsourced since 2007 but failed an AFD in 2008 due to no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 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. Notability established per the sources provided. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Bill Flowers

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 17:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep sources noted above by Ganesha811 are enough to pass WP:NBASIC/ WP:GNG, as they all have significant coverage of the subject. ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾, me!) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this local artist. Removed stale link farm of external links. ABC and the Advocate cover local kerfuffle. Fails WP:ARTIST -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep*- he seems notable with sources cited above Wasilatlovekesy ( talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per notability. Mutual United Ltd ( talk) 22:44, 24 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 Mark P. McCahill. ✗ plicit 00:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

POPmail

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

This unloved stub describes an early email client that was fairly widely used. However there doesn't seem to be a lot about it. The name of the client is also very close to the mail protocol it used, and is also re-used elsewhere (e.g. Zope classes) so searching is complicated. I was going to WP:BLAR to Mark P. McCahill, its creator, but saw there was an old AfD from 2006. On reviewing the old AfD, no secondary sources were discussed at all. It was kept on the basis that it existed and people remembered it. (Those were the days!) I do not oppose a redirect to Mark P. Cahill as a WP:ATD, but suspect this fails WP:PAGEDECIDE for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per nom. I was not able to find anything useable in magazines like Computerworld, Infoworld or PC Mag (via Google Books).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per nom and above comment. Cannot find any sources distinct from generic POP server coverage. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. Ben Azura ( talk) 17:47, 20 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. ✗ plicit 14:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Israel Gay Youth

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per @ Gidonb, as far as I can tell, there are other sources that allow the article to meet GNG/ORG. Better sources are an ATD, but I do not speak Hebrew, so I may be wrong. FortunateSons ( talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The search engine shows a lot of independent news coverage, including in English. Better Nuncio ( talk) 09:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – While in the news there seems to be mere passing mentions (upfront), possibly not WP:SIGCOV, there is strong sourcing in books and other areas that I found. And per the above. TLA tlak 07:17, 24 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 Brotha Lynch Hung. ✗ plicit 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Book III

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

Can't find any sources with more than a trivial mention. Rusalkii ( talk) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung: couldn't find any reliable coverage either. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung per QuietHere. TheChineseGroundnut ( talk) 08:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung: Sourcing I could find online refer to different books with a similar title. TLA tlak 07:41, 24 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 Guyana women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Melissia Elie

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) No evidence of any activity in the sport past her late teens. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:22, 17 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 Guyana women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Olivia Gonsalves

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions ( 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 22:16, 17 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! 22:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ana Trutić

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

I am unable to find enough coverage on the subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this 2020 piece which provides a few sentences of coverage after she scored an impressive goal in the Serbian Women's Super League. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:09, 17 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 solar eclipses in the 22nd century. ✗ plicit 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144

Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eclipse taking place more than 100 years in the future, with there being literally nothing that can be said other than the calculations offered by the refs. If I remember the precedent right we aren't going to be writing 22nd-century eclipse articles until we're a good ways closer to it. Primefac ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Crystalholm ( talk) 01:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
You mean, one of the world's current largest cities. At the rate we're going, most of NYC will be under water by the time this eclipse takes place. But hey, there may still be a settlement in the elevated parts of Yonkers who will enjoy the view... Owen× ☎ 16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is 120 years in the future. Let's keep it, as is. I can see this article being used as teachable info in schools, and quoted in various media outlets. — Maile ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. I can't find anything but databases and trivial mentions, neither of which meet the standard of SIGCOV required for notability. SIGCOV means significant coverage; mere mentions of "this is the next solar eclipse in NYC" are not sufficient. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century: the only thing that really distinguishes this eclipse from the other 64 total solar eclipses of the 22nd century is that this is one of the only three that will be visible from the continental US. Not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I don't think visibility from a certain geographical region is enough to confer special notability on an otherwise non-notable eclipse that has--at least so far--received no SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect We don't need a page holder to hang around for over 100 yrs here. seems pointless. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above until it starts to get more coverage. Praemonitus ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per the above. No reason for a separate article this far in advance in the absence of GNG level coverage. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:13, 24 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua Lisec

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

This is a marginal article. Notability depends on 2 articles in the Dayton Daily News, a 126-year old reliable publication. However as the brand new editor who proposed this article for deletion (PROD) noted, they're pretty fluffy articles. [1] I'm bringing this article to AfD based on his request at the Teahouse. [2] How do other editors view notability? A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ FrodeAnthelm, original PROD nominator -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete as not meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. While it could be argued that he has "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" I cannot find any evidence that his work has been the primary subject of significant coverage. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited. The most notable public book I could find for him was the one with Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy), which received a lot of attention when it was canceled due to his controversial comments and then published independently. The reference to that controversy was removed during earlier edits. I had some other references that were also removed that might help. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    "As it happens, I worked with an author on a not-quite-banned book recently. Dilbert creator and bestselling author Scott Adams had his long-running comic strip ended by multiple newspapers and his forthcoming book contract canceled over some hyperbolic remarks on race that were intended to stir up discussion. Scott Adams' books were twice banned, but Amazon reversed the decision." — Newsweek Lisec is listed as the editor of that book. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    And here's his TedX talk. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    And two TV interviews: ABC4 and Dayton 24/7 Now. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, and there is a possible WP:COI issue. The creator and primary contributor, user Doorknobbish, a single-purpose account (except for edits on other subjects made in 2010) has been approached by multiple users on his or her talk page about behavior that gives the appearance of COI, and did answer "I'm not being paid" but did not respond to the question raised 7 November 2023 by user David notMD, "do you have a personal connection to the subject of the article[?]".

To address a point above by the article's author, if the article's subject is not known for his work due to the nature of ghostwriting ("This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited"), then, not being known, the subject would fail to meet a notability standard. Wikipedia is not meant to "right the wrong" of ghostwriters not being known for their work, and it is not meant to establish notability for someone. FrodeAnthelm ( talk) 14:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: weak keep, has just enough coverage about being a ghostwriter. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm a longtime Wikipedia lurker but I had never tried to create a page before because it seemed like everything has been done. I follow Joshua Lisec on Twitter, where he has a big following, and I thought he deserved a page. I’m not being paid and I don’t have a relationship with him. On the other point, I'm not saying it should "right a wrong," I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments for him not being notable are due to the fact that you can't prove some things to Wikipedia standards. I put a lot of facts in the first draft about things that were notable about him that got taken out by other editors. Doorknobbish ( talk) 19:34, 21 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! 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ken Hermann (disambiguation)

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

Ineligible for PROD. The PROD rationale by AllTheUsernamesAreInUse was: "Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic." Pinging Boleyn who seconded the PROD. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:23, 17 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. While the discussion gave evidence of ample sourcing concerning the sackings, the consensus position is that it failed to suggest that the the personnel moves were associated with the counteroffensive. Lacking that comment thread ran afoul of WP:SYNTH. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this article be deleted? It is similar to List of Russian generals killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was once AfDed. It was kept on the basis that there were reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of many Russian generals dying during the invasion. Here are some of them, you can see they indeed discuss the general topic by reading their titles [3] [4] [5] [6].

About this article though I haven't found such types of general sources, they all discuss individual cases of dismissals and do not connect them nor associate them to the failed counteroffensive. See for example these articles [7] [8], they discuss the collective dismissal of six commanders but explain they are rather due to corruption rather than anything related to the counteroffensive and do not mention previous dismissals. In the absence of sources like the ones I described it becomes apparent this article is a WP:SYNTH mash-up, possibly with the so far unverifiable point of view of arguing that failures in the counteroffensive led to dismissals of officers.

By the way, Russian-language sources don't discuss this as a phenomenon either. I made some Google searches and it was mostly about Zaluzhnyi's possible dismissal. Ukrainian-language sources also don't discuss this. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Article isn't titled List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during anti-corruption measures. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Worse, article is from months before the counteroffensive, so completely unrelated and actually evidence for the "delete" side, showing that sackings happen all the time and the ones during the counteroffensive are in no way exceptional. Fram ( talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I can see the utility of this list too. A matter of ongoing news coverage. [9] [10] [11] As for Ukrainian official sources, WP:MANDY applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Russian sources don't treat this specific topic either. The first source you linked is Zaluzhnyi's dismissal. That is most definitively not during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.
The other two sources don't talk about the topic itself of dissmissals during the counteroffensive. I will show the titles of the articles I mentioned above that helped the list of killed Russian generals be kept to show the kind of source that I think should be brought here. How the Russian officer elite has been decimated in Ukraine — here are the generals and top commanders killed in action. Which Russian generals have been killed? The key military commanders Putin has lost in the invasion of Ukraine. These Top Russian Commanders Have Been Killed So Far, According to Ukraine. Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies. These actually talk about the topic itself, rather than say X general died at X date for us to synthezise into a list. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OR ( WP:SYNTH), implying that the dismissals have anything to do with the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive instead of being a normal group of unrelated changes. E.g. the source for the first entry [12] doesn't discuss the counteroffensive, but on the other hand makes it clear that such dismissals had happened often before this as well. Unless sources are provided which treat this combination (sackings / counteroffensive) as a real related notable phenomenon, we shouldn't be the first to suggest such a connection. Fram ( talk) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the 12 sources currently in the article make a connection between the dismissals and a wider pattern in regards to the counteroffensive. In fact, on the contrary, one of the sources, instead of the counteroffensive, mentions the "several scandals related to the procurement of equipment and supplies for Ukrainian soldiers" in regards to the defense ministry. Until we find sufficient RS's to make this connection from the dismissals to the counteroffensive, this is OR. Even if we do find sufficient sources, I am not convinced that it can't be covered in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article itself. 2G0o2De0l ( talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge with 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. I think we can deal this within the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many media dealt the problem with changing officials so often in Ukraine, so it can be described in the article.
Wendylove ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete like others above have said, there's nothing that shows a connection between dismissals and the counteroffensive. The Reuters article about six deputy defence minsters explicitly points out that "such moves are common after a new minister's appointment." Without anything to show a clear link between the dismissals and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive they're just concurrent events and WP:SYNTH. Shaws username .  talk . 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per args above. In addition, I don't think this has utility for readers under WP:CLN. I dont see any good merge or redirect target, delete seems to only option.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:56, 21 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! 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIA World Endurance Championship broadcasters

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY; all but one is by fiawec.com and the other one is from Discovery+. Not a single reliable third party source. Fails WP:LISTN. In short, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:54, 17 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 Control Denied. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Williams (metal drummer)

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

No individual notability, WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. ( talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Article should be merged to Control Denied. 162 etc. ( talk) 18:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Control Denied. The previous voter clearly did not read those many sources and may not have even read their titles, because they are all about Williams's notable bandmate Chuck Schuldiner, and some don't even mention Williams at all. Those that do mention him only have a brief listing of his presence in Control Denied. Williams's only other accomplishments were with non-notable local bands and he was only in Control Denied for a year. Nowhere close to independently notable per the WP:BANDMEMBER guideline. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Control Denied, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability for a separate article. Suonii180 ( talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect--no evidence of independent notability. Drmies ( talk) 14:05, 24 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Chepakovich valuation model

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD, as a merge/redirect to Alexander Chepakovich would perhaps unbalance that article. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable and highly-likely to be self-promotion given the editing history and the reference spam that I just removed from Alexander Chepakovich. Doesn't appear in any reliable texts about valuation. Jfire ( talk) 19:38, 18 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Cavin's Milkshake

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

Fails WP:N, was originally created by the company itself. CptViraj ( talk) 18:05, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

English Music Festival

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:05, 17 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 Henriette Pressburg. ✗ plicit 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Nanette Salomons Cohen

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of her, which the article reveals by introducing her as just "a Dutch citizen". Notability is not inherited, her being related to someone as well-known as Karl Marx doesn't make her inherently notable. toweli ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Judaism, and Netherlands. toweli ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to her daughter, Henriette Pressburg, as an WP:ATD. Otherwise, I agree with the intro. Fair disclosure: we are related through the husband, the cantor/textile merchant. Neither the husband nor Nanette Cohen are notable. It's important to apply the same criteria for relatives and nonrelatives alike. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If not kept, Redirect to her daughter Henriette Pressburg. Well-sourced but questionable notability. Pam D 08:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Being grandmother of Karl Marx appears to be only claim of notability. No evidence she had any strong relationship with or influence on Karl, who lived 170 miles away in Trier, and who she would only have seen during visits. Karl was only 14 when she died. Agree, if not kept, Redirect to her daughter. Henriette Pressburg. Hsq7278 ( talk) 14:41, 19 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! 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Caterpillar Inc. machines

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

No indication of notability. Merko ( talk) 16:16, 17 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! 23:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Högalidsspången

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 16:01, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Gem Television Tamil

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

Fails WP:GNG: I can't find any secondary sources about this channel, in English or Tamil. It was sent to draft once, then moved back to main space the following day with only a Google search cited as a reference. Wikishovel ( talk) 15:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment article creator has been blocked indefinitely as a spam/advertising-only account. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No references apart from the article's own website, and looks promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 08:57, 18 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. Star Mississippi 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Miloje Šarčević

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

Played 5 minutes of professional football over a decade ago but has no other claim to notability. I found a passing mention in Radio Pozega but it's nowhere near enough for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:35, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

European Universities Debating Championships

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 12:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 17 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. There is disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient so I'm closing this as No Consensus rather than relisting this discussion. The fact that sources are not in English is okay, it just makes the search a bit more challenging. It would be nice if sources were moved from the discussion to the article but it's not mandatory. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Bela Duarte

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years now, so hopefully we can resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think she is likely non-notable, which is unfortunate as she looks to be a good artist. Lots of passing mentions,perhaps promoting her work but nothing found in the WP:BEFORE which is substantial. Essentially a local artist. Fails WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment- My Google search didn't bring what I can use to defend, maybe because some of the publications not in English, there is possibility of it being notable but I doubt with my search. Wasilatlovekesy ( talk) 07:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm not sure why the prior !voters have been unable to find sourcing. I found four SIGCOV obituaries without much difficulty:
  • "Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte". Expresso das Ilhas (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary in one of the largest newspapers of Cape Verde.
  • "Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte - Sociedade - Santiago Magazine". Santiago Magazine (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – another obituary.
  • "Bela Duarte - Artista plástica da Modernidade de Cabo Verde - Vatican News". Vatican News (in Portuguese). 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary and audio profile.
  • "Faleceu "Bela Duarte", um dos expoentes máximos das artes plásticas". A Nação (in European Portuguese). 2023-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
Jfire ( talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: am not find any additional RS information to add to the article. No RS for biographical information, no sources for exhibition or collections. None of the information listed above has been added to the article. No birth or death dates. I don't understand Portuguese. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the sources adduced by Jfire above appear to be enough to support an article. While the first two look to be duplicates, there is enough coverage to work with. There is no requirement that sources be added to the article immediately nor that they be in English. In many cases, including this one a machine translation can go a long way in helping understand sources in a language one doesn't read.

    During his[sic] artistic career, in addition to Cape Verde, he participated in exhibitions in Austria, Belgium, the United States of America, France, Italy and Portugal. She was distinguished with the First Class of the Volcano Medal, in 2010, and First Class of the Medal of Merit of the Republic of Cape Verde, in 2018. In a statement, the Ministry of Culture and Creative Industries says it received with a feeling of regret the news of the death of the artist-teacher, Bela Duarte; “An unavoidable figure in weaving, who leaves, but is eternalized in her Art”.

    google translated from Expresso das Ilhas
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 10:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Saikat Baksi

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

I don't think, subject passes WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, fails WP:NAUTHOR, no significant coverage in RS, all I could find was the ToI interview already cited (interviews are primary sources), and this obvious paid puff piece on Mid-Day [13]. Article creator is a blocked sockpuppet of a serial spammer. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:03, 20 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. Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Walt Strony

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is an immense amount coverage particularly in organ magazines, reviews of other work, his work reviewed in at least two continents. The man has had a long career. Lots of GBooks refs. I think it needs a copyedit to remove the early WP:PRIMARY stuff and promote the WP:SECONDARY. He even has his own signature organ product line, organ review (physical instrument review) how it sounds, how it should sound (Never knew they did that). scope_creep Talk 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Walt is an internationally known and highly esteemed classical and theatre organist. He has published arrangements, as well as an authoritative book on theatre organ registrations.
I don't know how to edit citations, but #6 should be:
Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 31.
  1. 21 should be:
Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 28. Wmcoale ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Change the keep above for accuracy and for brevity's sake. scope_creep Talk 20:10, 18 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Vinco (company)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Salopek Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Barbara Salopek

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinco (company) Macbeejack ☎ 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 17 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 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Darko Pavlović

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

Played 10 minutes of top level football before disappearing into the lower tiers and with no apparent evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. In my searches, I found a blog post in BB Glas, but it's about a goalkeeper who turned 17 in 2021 so clearly not the same guy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 17 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 Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Star Mississippi 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wilhelm Blechschmidt

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; person has/had never gained medal record. Google search come up with silly, random namesakes.

Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. Interestingly, it states that this athlete "was a bobsledder of German nationality" but there is no statement whether he is dead or has/had German ancestry. The article even doesn't cite his place of birth!

CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FromCzech ( talk) 09:42, 22 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 14:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

RotateRight Zoom

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, does not meet GMC. Cinadon 36 16:28, 23 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 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jovan Brkljač

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

His professional career lasted all of 44 minutes and I can't find anything even close to meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 when searching in Serbian Cyrillic or otherwise. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

John Piper (author)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on the page offered to suggest why this author is particularly notable or meets the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 10:08, 17 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 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fabiana de Barros

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Studied at notable places, related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Sources in the article are primary or don't even mention the subject. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Of the sources I found, virtually all were mentions of Fabiana de Barros in the context of her father Geraldo de Barros. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this article. It is a promotional article. I agree that the existing sources are weak or fail verification.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:49, 19 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

National Technology Transfer Network

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I may be missing something in Ukrainian or Russian. Boleyn ( talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom.
Youprayteas ( t • c) 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Youprayteas, can you say more on why you think this article should be deleted? Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
No references, unclear notability for over 14 years as I see. Nothing added too. Youprayteas ( t • c) 10:04, 23 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

File Commander

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk) 12:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire ( talk) 19:12, 18 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 request the page's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Brandon Richards (disambiguation)

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

A clear case of WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:44, 17 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! 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Vinay Kumar G.B

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

Fails WP:NPOL B-Factor ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Karnataka. B-Factor ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, not yet elected to any office, and I can only find routine coverage of his candidacy for secondary coverage. Most of this article is about his business career, and again I can't find substantial secondary coverage of him as a businessman per WP:BIO. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. There is no coverage on the subject's biography or background or early life. All the sources are about him as the founder of InsightsIAS and his viewpoint. There are also inessential and unreliable sources on this page. One of the source comments "Another UPSC Mentor, Vinay Kumar G B found the Mains GS - 1 paper quite relevant and interesting" and this source has been unnecessarily linked to founder. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus ( talk) 14:20, 23 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! 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Servoy

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 07:47, 17 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! 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Agra (given name)

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME as having no Wikipedia articles about people with the name, and having failed NNAME fails WP:GNG as having no WP:SIGCOV and having hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases. It might even fail WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I don't see how. A few mentions in databases, calendars and frivolous sources of questionable reliability does not seem to indicate notability. And the sources you added are about the person listed, so I don't see how they contribute towards notability of the name itself. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:07, 19 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. To be honest, I'm not sure how to carry out "Delete and Merge". I think you have that backwards. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sterling, Virginia house explosion

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

Copying from a previous nomination template:

I am skeptical of the notability of this event under Wikipedia's guidelines for event notability. The inclusion criteria notes traits related both to the event itself and to the coverage of it:

  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. So far only one domestic news source has been cited, largely following the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred.

Borgenland ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Virginia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This has yet to be demonstrated as a notable event, and Wikipedia is not a news service. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Houses explode sometime, it happens. I haven't even heard of this town and I live in Virginia, so it's unlikely to have any sustained coverage or ramifications. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 21:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's a simple WP:NOTNEWS case here, and I'm really tired of these obvious cases being based on generic wire reports; build articles from local sources first and go from there. Nate • ( chatter) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS greyzxq talk 15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm actually the one who wrote out the nomination language that Borgenland used, and I agree that it applies here as well. I suspect that people don't realize how common home explosions are (not so common that the average person would experience one in their lifetime, but common enough that a few of them happen in the United States alone each year). When I set up a news alert for the house 2023 explosion in Arlington, VA, I got a lot of articles about home explosions in other states as well that had happened since then. It's dramatic, but that does not make it newsworthy. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Editing to instead suggest Delete and Merge into Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System#Notable Incidents. Within the context of the LC-CFRS, the incident actually is notable as possibly the single worst incident by casualty count for its members. A quick search actually does not turn up any other line of duty deaths for Loudoun County firefighters, and the large numbers of injuries in addition to the death does raise the degree of notability. That said, the notability of this event is relative to the LC-CFRS, and so it likely does not merit its own article. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 01:52, 22 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 Moldova women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ștefania Donica

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG after searching w/ both of her surnames. Not to be confused with the "relationship expert" of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:29, 17 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! 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Li Wenliang (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. Already taken care of by a hatnote. PROD removed due to it having been PRODed in the past. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:19, 17 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. since there is a promise to revise the article to current WIkipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity

Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article presently seems like a pure personal essay with many dubious suggestions and claims, and moreover a pure WP:TNT case. I am pretty sure its subject is notable, but it cites almost no sources, and the ones it does cite only tangentially or ephemerally relate to the claims it makes. Since it likely requires some working knowledge of Korean to rewrite this article into any adequate state, and its value is presently purely negative, I suggest deletion for now. Remsense 诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Seeing how bad it is, I Support deletion, or at the bare minimum, draftification. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 06:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Tentative delete. The subject is definitely notable, but the article's bad.
For notability, if anyone wants I can pull up sources, but hopefully it's evident why changing the standard Korean writing system was seen as a big deal. Debate involved nationalism, Korean independence activism, and practical linguistic concerns. IMO the debate went on for around a century; it only really died down in the 1990s. toobigtokale ( talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it. Remsense 诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now. I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like. The original is very charged and highly opinionated. I agree, is not well suited for this website. Zgw3kszo ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith. I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article. Remsense 诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm happy to hear that. Should I just revise the existing article? Zgw3kszo ( talk) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise. Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well. toobigtokale ( talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I would be happy to revise it into a far better article. What kind of timeframe should I aim for? Zgw3kszo ( talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
As a native Korean speaker, I will try what I can do with it. The article itself is definitely notable, and I think it most of its issues are susceptible to revisions. 00101984hjw ( talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep article. I think the article still has some hopes of being revised into a decent article. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try my best to find additional sources and copywrite the text. 00101984hjw ( talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep per the edits that are now being done to the article. I often run into relevant information about this debate; I may add my own copyedits and details at a later point too. toobigtokale ( talk) 20:07, 23 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 delete ( WP:G3) by User:Bbb23. ( non-admin closure)‎ Jfire ( talk) 22:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Codex coemeterium

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

De-prodded article. Original PROD reason, by Pallidus-leo: This codex almost certainly does not exist. No evidence for it's existence predate this wikipedia page and none of this pages sources refer to it in any way.

I seconded the PROD: The manuscript index catalogue of the Czech national library is here: https://www.en.nkp.cz/collections/by-document-type/historical-book-collection/manuscripts-and-incunabula/rukopisy-en. There is no "sb" shelfmark.

Declined by Kvng, reason: Deletion contested, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions asilvering ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I suspect the other creation by User:Lucien Astor, Ordo Secreta Sapientiae, is a hoax as well. Jfire ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Checking out the sources in the article, it turns out that they only support the parts of their respective sentences that are not about this subject. Neither of them say anything about the claimed subject.

    But what stopped me looking for serious sources was turning up a WWW forum post made by someone with the name Lucien Astor stating that xe had invented this as a piece of performance art where xe and two others pretend to be psychics for corporate entertainment, apparently another magic trick that xe was selling to people. And xe put it as a hoax in Wikipedia, ten months after posting that, it seems.

    This is not only a hoax, it is a hoax for commercial purposes, intended to support someone selling decks of gimmicked cards.

    Uncle G ( talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Asilvering, a successful prod results in WP:SOFTDELETE. That is not an appropriate outcome for a WP:HOAX. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:31, 17 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. BusterD ( talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ali Akbar Ghelich

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NSINGER. No indication of notability or coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to denote notability. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Be omitted
Hello, as an Iranian wiki writer, I do not know this gentleman, and he is not known among Iranians either. And the sources mentioned are not enough, also the sources are personal blogs. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 13:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Hello @ Adolfzl64, I have no role in the article's retention or deletion, and I express my opinion as the author of this article.
I have extracted the sources of the article from reliable sites such as Iran's official TV channels [16] [17], Tabnakjavan news agency and Iran's official IRIB news agency.In addition, I have included the music of the TV programs that this person was the singer of, from the main archive of Telewebion. [18] And I don't know which of the news are from the blogs that you are saying this. If I have included a blog as a news source, please let me know so I can correct it. Meyboad ( talk) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Radio of the Islamic Republic does not have a public audience. It is not valid because no one else is watching except for people like singer Mullahs and... And the government media has no credibility. among Iranians and the world. A media that proudly promotes war, bloodshed, lies and demagoguery, and the lack of women's rights and the LGBT community. There is no media that can give fame to a madah. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Your opinion is mixed with politics, while Wikipedia's rules emphasize an unbiased opinion. It is written in the WP:NSINGER: A singer who performed the music of a television program that was broadcasted nationwide can be qualified as an encyclopedia. I have also created it according to the rules. Besides, you said at first that the sources are from blogs, but now you say that Iranian TV is invalid! So why didn't you explain the problem you made to the sources? Meyboad ( talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you think that Nik Salehi and Tabnak Javan are independent and official news agencies? Performing a eulogy and music for a television program of the Islamic Republic It is interesting that dictators are praised. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
TabnakJavan has been operating independently as a Persian language news website since 2018, and a large number of Persian Wikipedia sources are also from this website, and it has a standard news process and an editor. [19] (I don't know which faction or political front he is connected to).
Nik Salehi is one of the most visited and old Iranian websites that publishes the biographies of famous Iranian people, and I only quoted the biographical part from this website.
However, I found more reliable sources from Mehr News Agency [20], Young Journalists Club [21], Borna News Agency [22] and ISNA News Agency [23], which are all official news agencies, and I will add these sources to the article. And thank you for making me find better and more reliable sources for the article. Meyboad ( talk) 15:05, 9 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) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:GNG as I see it, I also have suspicions about it being an UPE article. Tehonk ( talk) 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we focus on the sourcing including examining the new sources that have been added over the course of this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz there's a consensus for delete here with 3 delete votes, there's no keep other than the article creator, who will be blocked soon as a sock after I post my SPI, so this will be a G5 eligible too after all, I mean there's no need for these relists really. Tehonk ( talk) 08:03, 17 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But I'd like to make two comments in this closure. "Fancruft" gets used a lot in AFD nominations but according to WP:FANCRUFT, which is an essay not a guideline, it can be seen as pejorative comment and is not grounds for deletion.

Secondly, I sense a perception that Doctor Who articles are somehow protected by the relevant WikiProject but as a regular AFD closer, there were dozens and dozens of DW-related articles nominated in 2023, some for companions, and they almost all closed as "Delete" even though the WIkiProject was notified of the discussions. I remember one day when about 50 Doctor Who articles were all nominated for deletion and we had to ask for renomination of some because it was just too many articles for editors to evaluate in a week. So, there was a big clearing of the project of many less important articles on the TV series and books. I'm sure even more could be done, especially merging content but I just want to say that nominating a Doctor Who article is far from an automatic Keep decision. That's all. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Companion (Doctor Who)

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

Primarily fancruft. Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos ( talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad ( talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_21  TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here.
    And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs ( talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_21  TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT. At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem. If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad ( talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    This. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE. JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_21  TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:31, 22 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 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pegasus Software

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

I don't believe this holds up to the general notability guidelines. It reads like an ad/catalog and doesn't have any news or scholarly articles (or anything at all, really) that I could add to save it. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:28, 10 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! 05:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As stated in proposal, this article isn't notable. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 06:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Hardly any independent sources found. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Instinctively, seeing this AfD my reaction was "What? But I've heard of Pegasus Opera!" - which seems to have been the overriding sentiment in the 2006 "Keep" AfD. But my searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. A redirect to Infor could be a possible WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 09:26, 18 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Mike Clancy (politician)

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

Completely and utterly non-notable congressional candidate. No news attention outside of routine campaign-related coverage. Get this guy out of here. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • a redirect makes the most sense or if you still want to delete it just put it into draft space instead KchTheWikiKid ( talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete campaign spam for now. Fine with a redirect. SportingFlyer T· C 10:24, 19 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 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Katerina City Hotel

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

Both Russian and English language search gives nothing but trivial mentions or databases/bookings. The most substantive results are 1-2 sentences in a couple travel guides. Rusalkii ( talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I have no idea why this hotel even has an article and it is the creator's only contribution to this wiki. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, searching under the Russian translation returns very little beyond typical agent websites and customer reviews, not the independent and secondary WP:SIGCOV needed for an article. That said, I don't have the means to thoroughly search Russian material but it doesn't appear to be an extraordinarily remarkable hotel. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 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 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Gracie Gallegos

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

Completely unnotable mayor in a relatively small city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No sources found that come remotely close to showing notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The vast majority of secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN and there's nothing to pass WP:CRIME either. Shaws username .  talk . 13:28, 17 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 Lostwave. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives)

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

Only good source is Rolling Stone article. Other than that, all others sources are not notable or constitute as original research Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Seconding Pyramin that Rolling Stone is the only reliable source here, and I found no others. Would consider supporting a merge/redirect to an appropriate target if anyone else has one; I had thought about lost media but that page doesn't have any examples listed or substantial mention of music, so it's probably not a good fit, at least in its current state. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Id recommend a merge to the Lostwave article Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Was not aware of that article, but it makes perfect sense and already has a section on this song. I support this merge target as well. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Draft, I think with the French TV Station and time this article can be brought to standards, similar to the most mysterious song on the internet. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. As mentioned above, there are at least two known reliable sources: the Rolling Stone article and the TF1 broadcast. It's not much, but at least WP:GNG is met. That said, it is on the thin side, and there might be merit to merging it into Lostwave (or another article that serves as a list of songs notorious for being unknown). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. I'd need at least one more good source than the TF1 video and Rolling Stone article to feel good about keeping it, and a merge makes a lot more sense than a draft to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge with Lostwave, It's significant enough to be worthwhile to be as a particle but not significant enough to be an article at it's own. 78.190.59.94 ( talk) 07:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. There are two sources mentioned above (Rolling Stone article and TF1 broadcast). I also found a newser article referencing it. I didn't look into the reliability of the newser article, but it's also an original article, and not just an aggregation; and we're talking about notability, not citations. I'd say 3 sources is enough for WP:GNG. Crystalholm ( talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per @ Crystalholm's point, it has gained two mentions in two generally notable perennial sources, and will continue to grow in its search to be found while gaining more traction on TikTok and Reddit. More so to my other point, if The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet can have a listing in the same set of circumstances (not being fully found but of enough interest), this should be able to also. -- Mechanical Elephant ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. The song does not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an individual article, at least at this time. Underclass King ( talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify &/or merge with Lostwave. While I personally have an interest with the search, I feel the notability as of now is not quite enough to constitute an article. I will say that the subreddit & interest in the subject is growing pretty rapidly, which means it’s likely to gain more coverage. It could just be too soon. Not0nshoree ( talk) 23:29, 23 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Muttpop

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

Could not find any sources about this toy company. Not really sure if its even still active at this point. GamerPro64 03:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG, also WP:V Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:53, 21 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 Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sudhanoti

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

Largely unverifiable. I can't find references to "Jassi Khan Siddozai", "Sidhnuti" [24], Sudhanoti combined with 1407 [25]...

The same applies to other creations by same editor or around same topics, e.g. in First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947, I checked the first two and the last sources, and neither mentions Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Also nominated: reply

If these creations are indeed problematic, then the relevant edits to other articles like Sudhan and Sudhanoti District need to be reverted as well, and their other edits checked. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The first thing is to check this article again
Because in this article
First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947
It is clearly written that no government was established in Sidhnuti on October 4, 1947. Rather, on October 4, 1947, Siddhnuti, when all the areas of present-day Azad Kashmir were the first to be freed from Dogra continuity, the Azad Kashmir government was announced in Siddhnuti on October 4, 1947.
The government was established on 24 October 1947 at Chonjal Hill town of [Pallandri Tehsil] of Sudhanoti District.
The main reason for this was that on October 4, 1947, there was no parliamentary house in Siddhnuti from which the system of government could be run.
Therefore, this temporary government structure was started from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi.
After which this rebel revolutionary government prepared a 40-room Parliament House at Sidhnuti Chunjal Hill within twenty days.
Subsequently, on 24 October 1947, the same government was shifted from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi to Sidhnuti Chonjal Hill.
If you want more information then on October 4, 1947 the government announced in Sidhnuti
And on October 24, 1947, a whole book has been written on the government that was established in Palindri of Sidhanuti, you can visit it by opening the link.
https://www.academia.edu/43135608/Azad_Kashmir_is_it_Azad
_______
Secondly, the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of the Siddhnuti state because Siddhnuti has been an independent and independent state for many centuries.
That is why people believed in his independence.
I am not saying this, but all this is found in the history of world intellectuals. For references, see British historian (Ian Melville Stephens) book (Pakistan) 👇 https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+ revolt&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08shxb3dVqOHMG6pvwM9yfbqJf7KQ%3A1706901368404&ei=eD-9ZZKZGOrBxc8Pn4O4iAM &udm=&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiD1N1ZGhudXRpIHJldm9sdDIEECMYJ0jqTFD-M1igQHAAeACQAQCYAY0GoAH1HqoBCTMtMy4xLjMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAYoCGW1vYmlsZS1nd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAtbW9kZXOIBgE &sclient=mobile-gws-serp
In which he writes that the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the Sidhnuti rebellion and the movement of Sidhnuti which later turned into the Azad Kashmir movement.
Such is the founding president of Azad Kashmir
Sardar Ibrahim Khan
He also writes in his book The Kashmir Saga. See the link👇
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=770&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0hEbhy4AYGoiLbint4SaCWdPv2g%3A1707146269720&ei=HfzAZe-2K4-A9u8PrdSF2Ak&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi6gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLS0gd2hpY2ggbGF0ZXIgZXZvbHZlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBBemFkIEthc2htaXIgJyBtb3ZlbWVudCAtLSBoYWQgc2VudCBtZW4gYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBJbmR1cyBQbGFpbiBpbnRvIFBhdGhhbiB0cmliYWwgdGVycml0b3J5IHRvIHNlZWsgYXJtcyAuIEF0IHRoaXMgdGltZSAsIGFuZCBvbiBpbnRvIE5vdmVtYmVyICwgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZSBwb2xpdGljYWwgcmVsYXRpb25zICggaWYgYW55IClI9hNQ9wpY9wpwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEBigIZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc6gCAA&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion about Nawab Jassi Khan's rule in Sidhnuti has been answered by Pir Irshad's book. I have no more time to work on this free project. Do with this article as you see fit. Thanks, this is the last discussion from me. مشرا ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Academia.edu is not a reliable source, anyone can post there, and even then the source you give [28] doesn't even mention Sudhanoti/Sidhnuti... Your source about the Sidhnuti revolt [29] doesn't mention e.g. 1407, so I guess it is about the 4 October government? The quote you give at least mentions Sidhnuti, but that's it. Your second book, "The Kashmir Saga", literally repeats the first book. Do you have any reliable source for the independent kingdom founded in 1407? Fram ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the guide, there is an article on State Siddhanoti on Urdu Wikipedia. How about linking this article to the Sudhanoti article on the English Wikipedia? Link to article on State of Sudhnuti on Urdu Wikipedia👇
سدھنوتی ریاست
https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA مشرا ( talk) 04:14, 7 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) 04:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Sudhanoti District#History: The page as published is not ready for mainspace, it is mainly unreferenced original research. I think the combined info from all the sources make this a two paragraph summary in the target article, not a stand alone article. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.
re: First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 not ready for mainspace, a lot of words but very little information, and sources do not demonstrate notability for a stand alone article. This should Redirect to History of Azad Kashmir. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.
No objection to a consensus redirect(s) to another target.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree, redirect to Sudhanoti District. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 21:08, 13 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) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947. I could support a redirect of the second article per commenters above, but I consider the article title to be so implausible as a search request as to be of no benefit. As best I am able to determine these central assertions of these articles are unverifiable. I am no subject matter expert, and certainly could be mistaken, but the links to Google book searches are unhelpful as there is often no way to know whether any given user will see a specific page. In my case, nothing relevant to the discussion was shown. I tried my own search, but was unable to locate an Kashmiri kindom in 1407 that in any way matches the article. There may be a notable topic that can be written about with foreign language sources, but we will have to do a much better job of establishing that they comply with WP:V. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District#History and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947--between the ultra-specific title and the typo in the date (no space between the comma and 1947), I agree that this is not a useful redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 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 and no merger possible since the target does not exist. Star Mississippi 16:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Digital Access Signalling System 1

Digital Access Signalling System 1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article closely paraphrases part of a section about it on this website. Other than that, there's nothing more than mentions of this signalling system. That Tired Tarantula Burrow 02:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

https://archive.org/details/bte-198407/page/n17/mode/2up?q=%22DASS+Signalling%22
https://archive.org/details/bte-198501/page/n27/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
https://archive.org/details/telecommunicatio0000farr/page/76/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
https://archive.org/details/communicationsys0000brew/page/128/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
Based on the coverage in these sources, it seems that a discretionary merger of DASS1 and closely related articles such as Digital Access Signalling System 2 into a single article about the history of ISDN in the UK may make sense if somebody decides to write such article in the future. PaulT2022 ( talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, merging sounds like a good idea. That Tired Tarantula Burrow 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:07, 9 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) 03:31, 17 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 05:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jacob Bredesen

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

Major WP:Puff piece, lacking notability under any guideline. Sources are primary, local news or trivial/passing mentions, political achievements are in a tiny municipality. Geschichte ( talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Several of the sources are the Norwegian national broadcaster NRK, where he is not just trivially mentioned / passing. There are more sources and articles online not referenced in the article.
Political work also not really in the local municipal level, but rather the county level, there is among other things debates with parliamentarians and criticism of cabinet policies, and most of the sources I at least find cover non local issues.
However I do agree that the wording and structure suffers from puffery.
I am trying to create articles and content that cover this area, as Wiki was previously missing a lot of content from it. Tried to understand the notability guidelines, but perhaps they are stricter than I was aware.
There are several more individuals I was planning to do biographies of, that have made an impact in the Nordfjord region, so it would be good to understand how high the bar is before I continue this work. A lot of those have a few national articles (such as the case here) and a large amount of local and regional coverage. I was under the assumption that a few national + lots of local / regional would be enough, assuming they are not passing mentions / minor comments in larger articles. Nordfjording ( talk) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:26, 9 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) 03:30, 17 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 Captain Miller (film). (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Captain Miller (soundtrack)

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

I realize that this page recently went through AfD and easily passed, but the point that was missed in the first discussion is that this soundtrack album does not exist and I can find no evidence that there is a planned release. Five singles were released from the film and nothing else. The music section at Captain Miller (film) should certainly suffice. J04n( talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. J04n( talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Captain Miller (film). I think the nominator is correct about what went wrong in the first AfD last week. There are indeed plenty of sources but they are about individual songs that have emerged from the film. None indicate that this collection of songs will be released as a stand-alone soundtrack album. In other words, we can confirm that the songs exist, but the article under discussion here has been set up as an album article so that is what needs to be confirmed in the sources. Until that happens, the songs can be described at the film's article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to ping @ Hey man im josh, Wcquidditch, Geschichte, Kailash29792, and Ozzie10aaaa: and Tame Rhino. I may only speak for myself but nobody said the article was about an album; it's a detailed page about the soundtrack and that soundtrack received coverage. I still think a keep is OK, and although I am still not opposed to redirect, see my comment at last Afd about it. Still opposed to deletion anyway, as nominator and Doomsdayer520 also seem to be, if I understand well. In general, I don't think that such speedy renominations are a good idea unless there's a really urgent problem, but maybe that's just me. If we are looking for a relevant guideline, maybe WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material applies, that states "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Which seems to be the case. But one can also consider the music was released as part of the film. Music in Indian cinema has, as everyone knows, a quite specific role. I am not shocked by a standalone detailed article here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the infoboxes of the article and the main page about the film do indeed indicate "Album"; but that can be easily corrected. A note can even be added indicating that no album was released, only singles.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per Mushy Yank (I believe it is OK as well)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from nominator: merger to Captain Miller (film) is the ideal outcome. The page is written as if there is a soundtrack album which there is not, just 5 singles that have been released from the film. I do not believe that reworking the page and titling it 'Music from Captain Miller (film)' is appropriate. The majority of the sources are reviews for the film that merely mention the music or announcements of the release of one of the singles. J04n( talk page) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I already voted and I'm the outlier, but I will agree with J04n again. The "keep" voters above have provided no convincing evidence that this is an album. An album is a stand-alone item that qualifies for a Wikipedia article if notable, but a group of songs with a common association are not an album or any other stand-alone item. Therefore we have a violation of the unreleased material guideline because no album has been described as something that has been or will be released. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:49, 13 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) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to the film article as above. As a general proposition I'm not in favor of speedy renoms, but it is not disruptive in this case, and I do agree that the previous discussion failed to grapple with the core issue. The article is engaged in a bit of OR by presenting this as an album - it is the collected released songs from the film, and should be presented as such at that article. I see no sourcing that deals with the music collectively apart from the film, so we should not be the first to make that distinction. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:26, 25 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. ✗ plicit 05:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wayne Perryman

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

Some mentions in coverage, but not enough to make me think it passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT, Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE, the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad. It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment. There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches). Regardless, I think notability is met here.
TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I am leaning Keep, although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy. The New York Times, whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source. I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work. Bearian ( talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes. Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that. — Maile ( talk) 03:48, 17 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. primarily because I see no convincing arguments to Keep this article except from an sockpuppet whose contributions were struck. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of flyovers in Pakistan

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

I nominated this article for WP:PROD, which was contested by editor Codenamewolf. This is a curious unreferenced list, whose individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT. Only a handful of the list's entries have standalone articles, and I am not sure that reader interest really justifies a list article (though a category and See also mentions in the other flyover articles may be appropriate). I note that WP:NLIST says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

If editors can find sources that have discussed Pakistan's flyovers as a set, and save this article from deletion, that will be a very welcome outcome of this AfD.

For disclosure, there are four other List of flyovers in [X] or List of flyovers and under-passes in [X] articles (for cities or regions in Pakistan or India) that currently have a PROD tag; if it emerges that there is reasonable doubt that this article should not be deleted, I will remove those tags – or of course, any editor may do so, without waiting to see the consensus that forms here. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Firstly, and most importantly, thank you for cleaning the article and merging the content from the regional lists, which hopefully will allow the related regional list PRODs to go through without contest.
Secondly, I'm unconvinced by the navigational argument. With your cleaning, in the current revision, the number of bluelinks directing to flyovers per se is five ( Sher Shah Bridge, Muslim Town Flyover, Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover, Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover, Nishtar Chowk Flyover), of which four are in Multan. The other entries are either interchanges, redlinks, or redirects either to the roads the flyovers carry or the neighbourhoods where they are sited. (The linked interchanges already have a navigational page: Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan.) The five remaining flyovers are small enough in number to justify inclusion in each other's See also sections, and they could be integrated into the navigational page at Category:Road bridges in Pakistan. In my view, the principal advantage of a category over a link is that it dissuades the kind of WP:OR that the nominated article suffers, from editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Nor am I altogether convinced that anyone reasonably will care enough about "Flyovers in [X] country" as a category for a list article to carry encyclopaedic value; indeed, no other country has this kind of article to my knowledge. We also have Template:Bridges in Pakistan and List of bridges in Pakistan. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of notable flyovers in Pakistan so a stand alone list is justified. We have to find a compromise. This list meets WP:NLIST as well. See this reference. There are many references if you do a search in Pakistani newspapers. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The source you've shared isn't about the flyovers as engineered constructs per se, but a set of interviews with people who live under flyovers in Karachi. That might merit a mention in Karachi#Social issues, not an indiscriminate list of flyovers in Karachi. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Highway infrastructure like this is pretty generic, no indication that these are notable either individually or as a group. Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent to which this list does or does not have a reasonable navigational purpose in light of our list inclusion criteria would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:59, 17 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 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

First Frontier

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Couldn't find any reviews on isfdb, newspapers.com or proquest. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails NBOOK and GNG. Unable to find any independent third party sources that cover this topic in detail. Mostly what I am seeing is affiliated texts on the web, and, in any case, these would not be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:36, 17 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_17&oldid=1210206059"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sudden Death (band)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, can't find any secondary sources. Unsourced since 2007 but failed an AFD in 2008 due to no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 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. Notability established per the sources provided. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Bill Flowers

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 17:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep sources noted above by Ganesha811 are enough to pass WP:NBASIC/ WP:GNG, as they all have significant coverage of the subject. ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾, me!) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this local artist. Removed stale link farm of external links. ABC and the Advocate cover local kerfuffle. Fails WP:ARTIST -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep*- he seems notable with sources cited above Wasilatlovekesy ( talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per notability. Mutual United Ltd ( talk) 22:44, 24 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 Mark P. McCahill. ✗ plicit 00:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

POPmail

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

This unloved stub describes an early email client that was fairly widely used. However there doesn't seem to be a lot about it. The name of the client is also very close to the mail protocol it used, and is also re-used elsewhere (e.g. Zope classes) so searching is complicated. I was going to WP:BLAR to Mark P. McCahill, its creator, but saw there was an old AfD from 2006. On reviewing the old AfD, no secondary sources were discussed at all. It was kept on the basis that it existed and people remembered it. (Those were the days!) I do not oppose a redirect to Mark P. Cahill as a WP:ATD, but suspect this fails WP:PAGEDECIDE for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per nom. I was not able to find anything useable in magazines like Computerworld, Infoworld or PC Mag (via Google Books).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per nom and above comment. Cannot find any sources distinct from generic POP server coverage. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. Ben Azura ( talk) 17:47, 20 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. ✗ plicit 14:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Israel Gay Youth

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per @ Gidonb, as far as I can tell, there are other sources that allow the article to meet GNG/ORG. Better sources are an ATD, but I do not speak Hebrew, so I may be wrong. FortunateSons ( talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The search engine shows a lot of independent news coverage, including in English. Better Nuncio ( talk) 09:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – While in the news there seems to be mere passing mentions (upfront), possibly not WP:SIGCOV, there is strong sourcing in books and other areas that I found. And per the above. TLA tlak 07:17, 24 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 Brotha Lynch Hung. ✗ plicit 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Book III

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

Can't find any sources with more than a trivial mention. Rusalkii ( talk) 23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung: couldn't find any reliable coverage either. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung per QuietHere. TheChineseGroundnut ( talk) 08:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Brotha Lynch Hung: Sourcing I could find online refer to different books with a similar title. TLA tlak 07:41, 24 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 Guyana women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Melissia Elie

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) No evidence of any activity in the sport past her late teens. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:22, 17 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 Guyana women's international footballers. ✗ plicit 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Olivia Gonsalves

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions ( 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 22:16, 17 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! 22:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ana Trutić

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

I am unable to find enough coverage on the subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this 2020 piece which provides a few sentences of coverage after she scored an impressive goal in the Serbian Women's Super League. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:09, 17 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 solar eclipses in the 22nd century. ✗ plicit 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144

Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eclipse taking place more than 100 years in the future, with there being literally nothing that can be said other than the calculations offered by the refs. If I remember the precedent right we aren't going to be writing 22nd-century eclipse articles until we're a good ways closer to it. Primefac ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Crystalholm ( talk) 01:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
You mean, one of the world's current largest cities. At the rate we're going, most of NYC will be under water by the time this eclipse takes place. But hey, there may still be a settlement in the elevated parts of Yonkers who will enjoy the view... Owen× ☎ 16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is 120 years in the future. Let's keep it, as is. I can see this article being used as teachable info in schools, and quoted in various media outlets. — Maile ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. I can't find anything but databases and trivial mentions, neither of which meet the standard of SIGCOV required for notability. SIGCOV means significant coverage; mere mentions of "this is the next solar eclipse in NYC" are not sufficient. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 07:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century: the only thing that really distinguishes this eclipse from the other 64 total solar eclipses of the 22nd century is that this is one of the only three that will be visible from the continental US. Not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I don't think visibility from a certain geographical region is enough to confer special notability on an otherwise non-notable eclipse that has--at least so far--received no SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect We don't need a page holder to hang around for over 100 yrs here. seems pointless. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above until it starts to get more coverage. Praemonitus ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per the above. No reason for a separate article this far in advance in the absence of GNG level coverage. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:13, 24 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua Lisec

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

This is a marginal article. Notability depends on 2 articles in the Dayton Daily News, a 126-year old reliable publication. However as the brand new editor who proposed this article for deletion (PROD) noted, they're pretty fluffy articles. [1] I'm bringing this article to AfD based on his request at the Teahouse. [2] How do other editors view notability? A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ FrodeAnthelm, original PROD nominator -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete as not meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. While it could be argued that he has "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" I cannot find any evidence that his work has been the primary subject of significant coverage. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited. The most notable public book I could find for him was the one with Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy), which received a lot of attention when it was canceled due to his controversial comments and then published independently. The reference to that controversy was removed during earlier edits. I had some other references that were also removed that might help. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    "As it happens, I worked with an author on a not-quite-banned book recently. Dilbert creator and bestselling author Scott Adams had his long-running comic strip ended by multiple newspapers and his forthcoming book contract canceled over some hyperbolic remarks on race that were intended to stir up discussion. Scott Adams' books were twice banned, but Amazon reversed the decision." — Newsweek Lisec is listed as the editor of that book. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    And here's his TedX talk. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    And two TV interviews: ABC4 and Dayton 24/7 Now. Doorknobbish ( talk) 14:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, and there is a possible WP:COI issue. The creator and primary contributor, user Doorknobbish, a single-purpose account (except for edits on other subjects made in 2010) has been approached by multiple users on his or her talk page about behavior that gives the appearance of COI, and did answer "I'm not being paid" but did not respond to the question raised 7 November 2023 by user David notMD, "do you have a personal connection to the subject of the article[?]".

To address a point above by the article's author, if the article's subject is not known for his work due to the nature of ghostwriting ("This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited"), then, not being known, the subject would fail to meet a notability standard. Wikipedia is not meant to "right the wrong" of ghostwriters not being known for their work, and it is not meant to establish notability for someone. FrodeAnthelm ( talk) 14:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: weak keep, has just enough coverage about being a ghostwriter. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm a longtime Wikipedia lurker but I had never tried to create a page before because it seemed like everything has been done. I follow Joshua Lisec on Twitter, where he has a big following, and I thought he deserved a page. I’m not being paid and I don’t have a relationship with him. On the other point, I'm not saying it should "right a wrong," I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments for him not being notable are due to the fact that you can't prove some things to Wikipedia standards. I put a lot of facts in the first draft about things that were notable about him that got taken out by other editors. Doorknobbish ( talk) 19:34, 21 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! 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ken Hermann (disambiguation)

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

Ineligible for PROD. The PROD rationale by AllTheUsernamesAreInUse was: "Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic." Pinging Boleyn who seconded the PROD. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:23, 17 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. While the discussion gave evidence of ample sourcing concerning the sackings, the consensus position is that it failed to suggest that the the personnel moves were associated with the counteroffensive. Lacking that comment thread ran afoul of WP:SYNTH. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive

List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this article be deleted? It is similar to List of Russian generals killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was once AfDed. It was kept on the basis that there were reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of many Russian generals dying during the invasion. Here are some of them, you can see they indeed discuss the general topic by reading their titles [3] [4] [5] [6].

About this article though I haven't found such types of general sources, they all discuss individual cases of dismissals and do not connect them nor associate them to the failed counteroffensive. See for example these articles [7] [8], they discuss the collective dismissal of six commanders but explain they are rather due to corruption rather than anything related to the counteroffensive and do not mention previous dismissals. In the absence of sources like the ones I described it becomes apparent this article is a WP:SYNTH mash-up, possibly with the so far unverifiable point of view of arguing that failures in the counteroffensive led to dismissals of officers.

By the way, Russian-language sources don't discuss this as a phenomenon either. I made some Google searches and it was mostly about Zaluzhnyi's possible dismissal. Ukrainian-language sources also don't discuss this. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 11:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Article isn't titled List of Ukrainian officials dismissed during anti-corruption measures. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Worse, article is from months before the counteroffensive, so completely unrelated and actually evidence for the "delete" side, showing that sackings happen all the time and the ones during the counteroffensive are in no way exceptional. Fram ( talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I can see the utility of this list too. A matter of ongoing news coverage. [9] [10] [11] As for Ukrainian official sources, WP:MANDY applies here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Russian sources don't treat this specific topic either. The first source you linked is Zaluzhnyi's dismissal. That is most definitively not during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.
The other two sources don't talk about the topic itself of dissmissals during the counteroffensive. I will show the titles of the articles I mentioned above that helped the list of killed Russian generals be kept to show the kind of source that I think should be brought here. How the Russian officer elite has been decimated in Ukraine — here are the generals and top commanders killed in action. Which Russian generals have been killed? The key military commanders Putin has lost in the invasion of Ukraine. These Top Russian Commanders Have Been Killed So Far, According to Ukraine. Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies. These actually talk about the topic itself, rather than say X general died at X date for us to synthezise into a list. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OR ( WP:SYNTH), implying that the dismissals have anything to do with the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive instead of being a normal group of unrelated changes. E.g. the source for the first entry [12] doesn't discuss the counteroffensive, but on the other hand makes it clear that such dismissals had happened often before this as well. Unless sources are provided which treat this combination (sackings / counteroffensive) as a real related notable phenomenon, we shouldn't be the first to suggest such a connection. Fram ( talk) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the 12 sources currently in the article make a connection between the dismissals and a wider pattern in regards to the counteroffensive. In fact, on the contrary, one of the sources, instead of the counteroffensive, mentions the "several scandals related to the procurement of equipment and supplies for Ukrainian soldiers" in regards to the defense ministry. Until we find sufficient RS's to make this connection from the dismissals to the counteroffensive, this is OR. Even if we do find sufficient sources, I am not convinced that it can't be covered in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article itself. 2G0o2De0l ( talk) 01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge with 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. I think we can deal this within the article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Many media dealt the problem with changing officials so often in Ukraine, so it can be described in the article.
Wendylove ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete like others above have said, there's nothing that shows a connection between dismissals and the counteroffensive. The Reuters article about six deputy defence minsters explicitly points out that "such moves are common after a new minister's appointment." Without anything to show a clear link between the dismissals and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive they're just concurrent events and WP:SYNTH. Shaws username .  talk . 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per args above. In addition, I don't think this has utility for readers under WP:CLN. I dont see any good merge or redirect target, delete seems to only option.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:56, 21 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! 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIA World Endurance Championship broadcasters

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY; all but one is by fiawec.com and the other one is from Discovery+. Not a single reliable third party source. Fails WP:LISTN. In short, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:54, 17 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 Control Denied. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Williams (metal drummer)

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

No individual notability, WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. ( talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Article should be merged to Control Denied. 162 etc. ( talk) 18:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Control Denied. The previous voter clearly did not read those many sources and may not have even read their titles, because they are all about Williams's notable bandmate Chuck Schuldiner, and some don't even mention Williams at all. Those that do mention him only have a brief listing of his presence in Control Denied. Williams's only other accomplishments were with non-notable local bands and he was only in Control Denied for a year. Nowhere close to independently notable per the WP:BANDMEMBER guideline. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Control Denied, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability for a separate article. Suonii180 ( talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect--no evidence of independent notability. Drmies ( talk) 14:05, 24 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Chepakovich valuation model

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD, as a merge/redirect to Alexander Chepakovich would perhaps unbalance that article. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable and highly-likely to be self-promotion given the editing history and the reference spam that I just removed from Alexander Chepakovich. Doesn't appear in any reliable texts about valuation. Jfire ( talk) 19:38, 18 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Cavin's Milkshake

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

Fails WP:N, was originally created by the company itself. CptViraj ( talk) 18:05, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

English Music Festival

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:05, 17 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 Henriette Pressburg. ✗ plicit 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Nanette Salomons Cohen

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of her, which the article reveals by introducing her as just "a Dutch citizen". Notability is not inherited, her being related to someone as well-known as Karl Marx doesn't make her inherently notable. toweli ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Judaism, and Netherlands. toweli ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to her daughter, Henriette Pressburg, as an WP:ATD. Otherwise, I agree with the intro. Fair disclosure: we are related through the husband, the cantor/textile merchant. Neither the husband nor Nanette Cohen are notable. It's important to apply the same criteria for relatives and nonrelatives alike. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If not kept, Redirect to her daughter Henriette Pressburg. Well-sourced but questionable notability. Pam D 08:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Being grandmother of Karl Marx appears to be only claim of notability. No evidence she had any strong relationship with or influence on Karl, who lived 170 miles away in Trier, and who she would only have seen during visits. Karl was only 14 when she died. Agree, if not kept, Redirect to her daughter. Henriette Pressburg. Hsq7278 ( talk) 14:41, 19 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! 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Caterpillar Inc. machines

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

No indication of notability. Merko ( talk) 16:16, 17 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! 23:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Högalidsspången

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 16:01, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Gem Television Tamil

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

Fails WP:GNG: I can't find any secondary sources about this channel, in English or Tamil. It was sent to draft once, then moved back to main space the following day with only a Google search cited as a reference. Wikishovel ( talk) 15:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment article creator has been blocked indefinitely as a spam/advertising-only account. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No references apart from the article's own website, and looks promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 08:57, 18 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. Star Mississippi 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Miloje Šarčević

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

Played 5 minutes of professional football over a decade ago but has no other claim to notability. I found a passing mention in Radio Pozega but it's nowhere near enough for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:35, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

European Universities Debating Championships

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 12:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 17 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. There is disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient so I'm closing this as No Consensus rather than relisting this discussion. The fact that sources are not in English is okay, it just makes the search a bit more challenging. It would be nice if sources were moved from the discussion to the article but it's not mandatory. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Bela Duarte

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years now, so hopefully we can resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think she is likely non-notable, which is unfortunate as she looks to be a good artist. Lots of passing mentions,perhaps promoting her work but nothing found in the WP:BEFORE which is substantial. Essentially a local artist. Fails WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment- My Google search didn't bring what I can use to defend, maybe because some of the publications not in English, there is possibility of it being notable but I doubt with my search. Wasilatlovekesy ( talk) 07:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm not sure why the prior !voters have been unable to find sourcing. I found four SIGCOV obituaries without much difficulty:
  • "Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte". Expresso das Ilhas (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary in one of the largest newspapers of Cape Verde.
  • "Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte - Sociedade - Santiago Magazine". Santiago Magazine (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – another obituary.
  • "Bela Duarte - Artista plástica da Modernidade de Cabo Verde - Vatican News". Vatican News (in Portuguese). 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary and audio profile.
  • "Faleceu "Bela Duarte", um dos expoentes máximos das artes plásticas". A Nação (in European Portuguese). 2023-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
Jfire ( talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: am not find any additional RS information to add to the article. No RS for biographical information, no sources for exhibition or collections. None of the information listed above has been added to the article. No birth or death dates. I don't understand Portuguese. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the sources adduced by Jfire above appear to be enough to support an article. While the first two look to be duplicates, there is enough coverage to work with. There is no requirement that sources be added to the article immediately nor that they be in English. In many cases, including this one a machine translation can go a long way in helping understand sources in a language one doesn't read.

    During his[sic] artistic career, in addition to Cape Verde, he participated in exhibitions in Austria, Belgium, the United States of America, France, Italy and Portugal. She was distinguished with the First Class of the Volcano Medal, in 2010, and First Class of the Medal of Merit of the Republic of Cape Verde, in 2018. In a statement, the Ministry of Culture and Creative Industries says it received with a feeling of regret the news of the death of the artist-teacher, Bela Duarte; “An unavoidable figure in weaving, who leaves, but is eternalized in her Art”.

    google translated from Expresso das Ilhas
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 10:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Saikat Baksi

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

I don't think, subject passes WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, fails WP:NAUTHOR, no significant coverage in RS, all I could find was the ToI interview already cited (interviews are primary sources), and this obvious paid puff piece on Mid-Day [13]. Article creator is a blocked sockpuppet of a serial spammer. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:03, 20 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. Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Walt Strony

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is an immense amount coverage particularly in organ magazines, reviews of other work, his work reviewed in at least two continents. The man has had a long career. Lots of GBooks refs. I think it needs a copyedit to remove the early WP:PRIMARY stuff and promote the WP:SECONDARY. He even has his own signature organ product line, organ review (physical instrument review) how it sounds, how it should sound (Never knew they did that). scope_creep Talk 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Walt is an internationally known and highly esteemed classical and theatre organist. He has published arrangements, as well as an authoritative book on theatre organ registrations.
I don't know how to edit citations, but #6 should be:
Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 31.
  1. 21 should be:
Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 28. Wmcoale ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Change the keep above for accuracy and for brevity's sake. scope_creep Talk 20:10, 18 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Vinco (company)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Salopek Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Barbara Salopek

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinco (company) Macbeejack ☎ 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 17 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 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Darko Pavlović

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

Played 10 minutes of top level football before disappearing into the lower tiers and with no apparent evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. In my searches, I found a blog post in BB Glas, but it's about a goalkeeper who turned 17 in 2021 so clearly not the same guy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 17 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 Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Star Mississippi 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wilhelm Blechschmidt

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; person has/had never gained medal record. Google search come up with silly, random namesakes.

Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. Interestingly, it states that this athlete "was a bobsledder of German nationality" but there is no statement whether he is dead or has/had German ancestry. The article even doesn't cite his place of birth!

CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FromCzech ( talk) 09:42, 22 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 14:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

RotateRight Zoom

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, does not meet GMC. Cinadon 36 16:28, 23 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 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jovan Brkljač

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

His professional career lasted all of 44 minutes and I can't find anything even close to meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 when searching in Serbian Cyrillic or otherwise. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

John Piper (author)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on the page offered to suggest why this author is particularly notable or meets the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 10:08, 17 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 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fabiana de Barros

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Studied at notable places, related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Sources in the article are primary or don't even mention the subject. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Of the sources I found, virtually all were mentions of Fabiana de Barros in the context of her father Geraldo de Barros. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this article. It is a promotional article. I agree that the existing sources are weak or fail verification.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:49, 19 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

National Technology Transfer Network

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I may be missing something in Ukrainian or Russian. Boleyn ( talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom.
Youprayteas ( t • c) 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Youprayteas, can you say more on why you think this article should be deleted? Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
No references, unclear notability for over 14 years as I see. Nothing added too. Youprayteas ( t • c) 10:04, 23 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

File Commander

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk) 12:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire ( talk) 19:12, 18 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 request the page's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Brandon Richards (disambiguation)

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

A clear case of WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:44, 17 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! 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Vinay Kumar G.B

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

Fails WP:NPOL B-Factor ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Karnataka. B-Factor ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, not yet elected to any office, and I can only find routine coverage of his candidacy for secondary coverage. Most of this article is about his business career, and again I can't find substantial secondary coverage of him as a businessman per WP:BIO. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. There is no coverage on the subject's biography or background or early life. All the sources are about him as the founder of InsightsIAS and his viewpoint. There are also inessential and unreliable sources on this page. One of the source comments "Another UPSC Mentor, Vinay Kumar G B found the Mains GS - 1 paper quite relevant and interesting" and this source has been unnecessarily linked to founder. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus ( talk) 14:20, 23 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! 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Servoy

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 07:47, 17 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! 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Agra (given name)

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME as having no Wikipedia articles about people with the name, and having failed NNAME fails WP:GNG as having no WP:SIGCOV and having hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases. It might even fail WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I don't see how. A few mentions in databases, calendars and frivolous sources of questionable reliability does not seem to indicate notability. And the sources you added are about the person listed, so I don't see how they contribute towards notability of the name itself. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:07, 19 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. To be honest, I'm not sure how to carry out "Delete and Merge". I think you have that backwards. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sterling, Virginia house explosion

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

Copying from a previous nomination template:

I am skeptical of the notability of this event under Wikipedia's guidelines for event notability. The inclusion criteria notes traits related both to the event itself and to the coverage of it:

  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. So far only one domestic news source has been cited, largely following the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred.

Borgenland ( talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Virginia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This has yet to be demonstrated as a notable event, and Wikipedia is not a news service. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Houses explode sometime, it happens. I haven't even heard of this town and I live in Virginia, so it's unlikely to have any sustained coverage or ramifications. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk) 21:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's a simple WP:NOTNEWS case here, and I'm really tired of these obvious cases being based on generic wire reports; build articles from local sources first and go from there. Nate • ( chatter) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS greyzxq talk 15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm actually the one who wrote out the nomination language that Borgenland used, and I agree that it applies here as well. I suspect that people don't realize how common home explosions are (not so common that the average person would experience one in their lifetime, but common enough that a few of them happen in the United States alone each year). When I set up a news alert for the house 2023 explosion in Arlington, VA, I got a lot of articles about home explosions in other states as well that had happened since then. It's dramatic, but that does not make it newsworthy. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Editing to instead suggest Delete and Merge into Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System#Notable Incidents. Within the context of the LC-CFRS, the incident actually is notable as possibly the single worst incident by casualty count for its members. A quick search actually does not turn up any other line of duty deaths for Loudoun County firefighters, and the large numbers of injuries in addition to the death does raise the degree of notability. That said, the notability of this event is relative to the LC-CFRS, and so it likely does not merit its own article. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 01:52, 22 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 Moldova women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ștefania Donica

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG after searching w/ both of her surnames. Not to be confused with the "relationship expert" of the same name. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:29, 17 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! 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Li Wenliang (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. Already taken care of by a hatnote. PROD removed due to it having been PRODed in the past. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:19, 17 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. since there is a promise to revise the article to current WIkipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity

Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article presently seems like a pure personal essay with many dubious suggestions and claims, and moreover a pure WP:TNT case. I am pretty sure its subject is notable, but it cites almost no sources, and the ones it does cite only tangentially or ephemerally relate to the claims it makes. Since it likely requires some working knowledge of Korean to rewrite this article into any adequate state, and its value is presently purely negative, I suggest deletion for now. Remsense 诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Seeing how bad it is, I Support deletion, or at the bare minimum, draftification. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 06:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Tentative delete. The subject is definitely notable, but the article's bad.
For notability, if anyone wants I can pull up sources, but hopefully it's evident why changing the standard Korean writing system was seen as a big deal. Debate involved nationalism, Korean independence activism, and practical linguistic concerns. IMO the debate went on for around a century; it only really died down in the 1990s. toobigtokale ( talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it. Remsense 诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now. I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like. The original is very charged and highly opinionated. I agree, is not well suited for this website. Zgw3kszo ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith. I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article. Remsense 诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm happy to hear that. Should I just revise the existing article? Zgw3kszo ( talk) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise. Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well. toobigtokale ( talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I would be happy to revise it into a far better article. What kind of timeframe should I aim for? Zgw3kszo ( talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
As a native Korean speaker, I will try what I can do with it. The article itself is definitely notable, and I think it most of its issues are susceptible to revisions. 00101984hjw ( talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep article. I think the article still has some hopes of being revised into a decent article. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try my best to find additional sources and copywrite the text. 00101984hjw ( talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep per the edits that are now being done to the article. I often run into relevant information about this debate; I may add my own copyedits and details at a later point too. toobigtokale ( talk) 20:07, 23 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 delete ( WP:G3) by User:Bbb23. ( non-admin closure)‎ Jfire ( talk) 22:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Codex coemeterium

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

De-prodded article. Original PROD reason, by Pallidus-leo: This codex almost certainly does not exist. No evidence for it's existence predate this wikipedia page and none of this pages sources refer to it in any way.

I seconded the PROD: The manuscript index catalogue of the Czech national library is here: https://www.en.nkp.cz/collections/by-document-type/historical-book-collection/manuscripts-and-incunabula/rukopisy-en. There is no "sb" shelfmark.

Declined by Kvng, reason: Deletion contested, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions asilvering ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering ( talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I suspect the other creation by User:Lucien Astor, Ordo Secreta Sapientiae, is a hoax as well. Jfire ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Checking out the sources in the article, it turns out that they only support the parts of their respective sentences that are not about this subject. Neither of them say anything about the claimed subject.

    But what stopped me looking for serious sources was turning up a WWW forum post made by someone with the name Lucien Astor stating that xe had invented this as a piece of performance art where xe and two others pretend to be psychics for corporate entertainment, apparently another magic trick that xe was selling to people. And xe put it as a hoax in Wikipedia, ten months after posting that, it seems.

    This is not only a hoax, it is a hoax for commercial purposes, intended to support someone selling decks of gimmicked cards.

    Uncle G ( talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Asilvering, a successful prod results in WP:SOFTDELETE. That is not an appropriate outcome for a WP:HOAX. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:31, 17 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. BusterD ( talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ali Akbar Ghelich

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NSINGER. No indication of notability or coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to denote notability. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Be omitted
Hello, as an Iranian wiki writer, I do not know this gentleman, and he is not known among Iranians either. And the sources mentioned are not enough, also the sources are personal blogs. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 13:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Hello @ Adolfzl64, I have no role in the article's retention or deletion, and I express my opinion as the author of this article.
I have extracted the sources of the article from reliable sites such as Iran's official TV channels [16] [17], Tabnakjavan news agency and Iran's official IRIB news agency.In addition, I have included the music of the TV programs that this person was the singer of, from the main archive of Telewebion. [18] And I don't know which of the news are from the blogs that you are saying this. If I have included a blog as a news source, please let me know so I can correct it. Meyboad ( talk) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Radio of the Islamic Republic does not have a public audience. It is not valid because no one else is watching except for people like singer Mullahs and... And the government media has no credibility. among Iranians and the world. A media that proudly promotes war, bloodshed, lies and demagoguery, and the lack of women's rights and the LGBT community. There is no media that can give fame to a madah. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Your opinion is mixed with politics, while Wikipedia's rules emphasize an unbiased opinion. It is written in the WP:NSINGER: A singer who performed the music of a television program that was broadcasted nationwide can be qualified as an encyclopedia. I have also created it according to the rules. Besides, you said at first that the sources are from blogs, but now you say that Iranian TV is invalid! So why didn't you explain the problem you made to the sources? Meyboad ( talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you think that Nik Salehi and Tabnak Javan are independent and official news agencies? Performing a eulogy and music for a television program of the Islamic Republic It is interesting that dictators are praised. Adolfzl64 ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
TabnakJavan has been operating independently as a Persian language news website since 2018, and a large number of Persian Wikipedia sources are also from this website, and it has a standard news process and an editor. [19] (I don't know which faction or political front he is connected to).
Nik Salehi is one of the most visited and old Iranian websites that publishes the biographies of famous Iranian people, and I only quoted the biographical part from this website.
However, I found more reliable sources from Mehr News Agency [20], Young Journalists Club [21], Borna News Agency [22] and ISNA News Agency [23], which are all official news agencies, and I will add these sources to the article. And thank you for making me find better and more reliable sources for the article. Meyboad ( talk) 15:05, 9 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) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:GNG as I see it, I also have suspicions about it being an UPE article. Tehonk ( talk) 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we focus on the sourcing including examining the new sources that have been added over the course of this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz there's a consensus for delete here with 3 delete votes, there's no keep other than the article creator, who will be blocked soon as a sock after I post my SPI, so this will be a G5 eligible too after all, I mean there's no need for these relists really. Tehonk ( talk) 08:03, 17 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But I'd like to make two comments in this closure. "Fancruft" gets used a lot in AFD nominations but according to WP:FANCRUFT, which is an essay not a guideline, it can be seen as pejorative comment and is not grounds for deletion.

Secondly, I sense a perception that Doctor Who articles are somehow protected by the relevant WikiProject but as a regular AFD closer, there were dozens and dozens of DW-related articles nominated in 2023, some for companions, and they almost all closed as "Delete" even though the WIkiProject was notified of the discussions. I remember one day when about 50 Doctor Who articles were all nominated for deletion and we had to ask for renomination of some because it was just too many articles for editors to evaluate in a week. So, there was a big clearing of the project of many less important articles on the TV series and books. I'm sure even more could be done, especially merging content but I just want to say that nominating a Doctor Who article is far from an automatic Keep decision. That's all. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Companion (Doctor Who)

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

Primarily fancruft. Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos ( talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad ( talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_21  TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here.
    And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs ( talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_21  TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs ( talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_21  TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT. At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem. If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad ( talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    This. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE. JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_21  TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:31, 22 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 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pegasus Software

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

I don't believe this holds up to the general notability guidelines. It reads like an ad/catalog and doesn't have any news or scholarly articles (or anything at all, really) that I could add to save it. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:28, 10 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! 05:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As stated in proposal, this article isn't notable. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 06:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Hardly any independent sources found. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Instinctively, seeing this AfD my reaction was "What? But I've heard of Pegasus Opera!" - which seems to have been the overriding sentiment in the 2006 "Keep" AfD. But my searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. A redirect to Infor could be a possible WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 09:26, 18 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Mike Clancy (politician)

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

Completely and utterly non-notable congressional candidate. No news attention outside of routine campaign-related coverage. Get this guy out of here. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • a redirect makes the most sense or if you still want to delete it just put it into draft space instead KchTheWikiKid ( talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete campaign spam for now. Fine with a redirect. SportingFlyer T· C 10:24, 19 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 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Katerina City Hotel

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

Both Russian and English language search gives nothing but trivial mentions or databases/bookings. The most substantive results are 1-2 sentences in a couple travel guides. Rusalkii ( talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I have no idea why this hotel even has an article and it is the creator's only contribution to this wiki. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, searching under the Russian translation returns very little beyond typical agent websites and customer reviews, not the independent and secondary WP:SIGCOV needed for an article. That said, I don't have the means to thoroughly search Russian material but it doesn't appear to be an extraordinarily remarkable hotel. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 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 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Gracie Gallegos

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

Completely unnotable mayor in a relatively small city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No sources found that come remotely close to showing notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The vast majority of secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN and there's nothing to pass WP:CRIME either. Shaws username .  talk . 13:28, 17 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 Lostwave. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives)

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

Only good source is Rolling Stone article. Other than that, all others sources are not notable or constitute as original research Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Seconding Pyramin that Rolling Stone is the only reliable source here, and I found no others. Would consider supporting a merge/redirect to an appropriate target if anyone else has one; I had thought about lost media but that page doesn't have any examples listed or substantial mention of music, so it's probably not a good fit, at least in its current state. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Id recommend a merge to the Lostwave article Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Was not aware of that article, but it makes perfect sense and already has a section on this song. I support this merge target as well. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Draft, I think with the French TV Station and time this article can be brought to standards, similar to the most mysterious song on the internet. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. As mentioned above, there are at least two known reliable sources: the Rolling Stone article and the TF1 broadcast. It's not much, but at least WP:GNG is met. That said, it is on the thin side, and there might be merit to merging it into Lostwave (or another article that serves as a list of songs notorious for being unknown). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. I'd need at least one more good source than the TF1 video and Rolling Stone article to feel good about keeping it, and a merge makes a lot more sense than a draft to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge with Lostwave, It's significant enough to be worthwhile to be as a particle but not significant enough to be an article at it's own. 78.190.59.94 ( talk) 07:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. There are two sources mentioned above (Rolling Stone article and TF1 broadcast). I also found a newser article referencing it. I didn't look into the reliability of the newser article, but it's also an original article, and not just an aggregation; and we're talking about notability, not citations. I'd say 3 sources is enough for WP:GNG. Crystalholm ( talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per @ Crystalholm's point, it has gained two mentions in two generally notable perennial sources, and will continue to grow in its search to be found while gaining more traction on TikTok and Reddit. More so to my other point, if The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet can have a listing in the same set of circumstances (not being fully found but of enough interest), this should be able to also. -- Mechanical Elephant ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Lostwave. The song does not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an individual article, at least at this time. Underclass King ( talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify &/or merge with Lostwave. While I personally have an interest with the search, I feel the notability as of now is not quite enough to constitute an article. I will say that the subreddit & interest in the subject is growing pretty rapidly, which means it’s likely to gain more coverage. It could just be too soon. Not0nshoree ( talk) 23:29, 23 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Muttpop

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

Could not find any sources about this toy company. Not really sure if its even still active at this point. GamerPro64 03:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG, also WP:V Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:53, 21 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 Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sudhanoti

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

Largely unverifiable. I can't find references to "Jassi Khan Siddozai", "Sidhnuti" [24], Sudhanoti combined with 1407 [25]...

The same applies to other creations by same editor or around same topics, e.g. in First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947, I checked the first two and the last sources, and neither mentions Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Also nominated: reply

If these creations are indeed problematic, then the relevant edits to other articles like Sudhan and Sudhanoti District need to be reverted as well, and their other edits checked. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The first thing is to check this article again
Because in this article
First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947
It is clearly written that no government was established in Sidhnuti on October 4, 1947. Rather, on October 4, 1947, Siddhnuti, when all the areas of present-day Azad Kashmir were the first to be freed from Dogra continuity, the Azad Kashmir government was announced in Siddhnuti on October 4, 1947.
The government was established on 24 October 1947 at Chonjal Hill town of [Pallandri Tehsil] of Sudhanoti District.
The main reason for this was that on October 4, 1947, there was no parliamentary house in Siddhnuti from which the system of government could be run.
Therefore, this temporary government structure was started from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi.
After which this rebel revolutionary government prepared a 40-room Parliament House at Sidhnuti Chunjal Hill within twenty days.
Subsequently, on 24 October 1947, the same government was shifted from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi to Sidhnuti Chonjal Hill.
If you want more information then on October 4, 1947 the government announced in Sidhnuti
And on October 24, 1947, a whole book has been written on the government that was established in Palindri of Sidhanuti, you can visit it by opening the link.
https://www.academia.edu/43135608/Azad_Kashmir_is_it_Azad
_______
Secondly, the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of the Siddhnuti state because Siddhnuti has been an independent and independent state for many centuries.
That is why people believed in his independence.
I am not saying this, but all this is found in the history of world intellectuals. For references, see British historian (Ian Melville Stephens) book (Pakistan) 👇 https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+ revolt&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08shxb3dVqOHMG6pvwM9yfbqJf7KQ%3A1706901368404&ei=eD-9ZZKZGOrBxc8Pn4O4iAM &udm=&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiD1N1ZGhudXRpIHJldm9sdDIEECMYJ0jqTFD-M1igQHAAeACQAQCYAY0GoAH1HqoBCTMtMy4xLjMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAYoCGW1vYmlsZS1nd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAtbW9kZXOIBgE &sclient=mobile-gws-serp
In which he writes that the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the Sidhnuti rebellion and the movement of Sidhnuti which later turned into the Azad Kashmir movement.
Such is the founding president of Azad Kashmir
Sardar Ibrahim Khan
He also writes in his book The Kashmir Saga. See the link👇
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=770&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0hEbhy4AYGoiLbint4SaCWdPv2g%3A1707146269720&ei=HfzAZe-2K4-A9u8PrdSF2Ak&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi6gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLS0gd2hpY2ggbGF0ZXIgZXZvbHZlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBBemFkIEthc2htaXIgJyBtb3ZlbWVudCAtLSBoYWQgc2VudCBtZW4gYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBJbmR1cyBQbGFpbiBpbnRvIFBhdGhhbiB0cmliYWwgdGVycml0b3J5IHRvIHNlZWsgYXJtcyAuIEF0IHRoaXMgdGltZSAsIGFuZCBvbiBpbnRvIE5vdmVtYmVyICwgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZSBwb2xpdGljYWwgcmVsYXRpb25zICggaWYgYW55IClI9hNQ9wpY9wpwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEBigIZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc6gCAA&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion about Nawab Jassi Khan's rule in Sidhnuti has been answered by Pir Irshad's book. I have no more time to work on this free project. Do with this article as you see fit. Thanks, this is the last discussion from me. مشرا ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Academia.edu is not a reliable source, anyone can post there, and even then the source you give [28] doesn't even mention Sudhanoti/Sidhnuti... Your source about the Sidhnuti revolt [29] doesn't mention e.g. 1407, so I guess it is about the 4 October government? The quote you give at least mentions Sidhnuti, but that's it. Your second book, "The Kashmir Saga", literally repeats the first book. Do you have any reliable source for the independent kingdom founded in 1407? Fram ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the guide, there is an article on State Siddhanoti on Urdu Wikipedia. How about linking this article to the Sudhanoti article on the English Wikipedia? Link to article on State of Sudhnuti on Urdu Wikipedia👇
سدھنوتی ریاست
https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA مشرا ( talk) 04:14, 7 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) 04:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Sudhanoti District#History: The page as published is not ready for mainspace, it is mainly unreferenced original research. I think the combined info from all the sources make this a two paragraph summary in the target article, not a stand alone article. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.
re: First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 not ready for mainspace, a lot of words but very little information, and sources do not demonstrate notability for a stand alone article. This should Redirect to History of Azad Kashmir. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.
No objection to a consensus redirect(s) to another target.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree, redirect to Sudhanoti District. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 21:08, 13 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) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947. I could support a redirect of the second article per commenters above, but I consider the article title to be so implausible as a search request as to be of no benefit. As best I am able to determine these central assertions of these articles are unverifiable. I am no subject matter expert, and certainly could be mistaken, but the links to Google book searches are unhelpful as there is often no way to know whether any given user will see a specific page. In my case, nothing relevant to the discussion was shown. I tried my own search, but was unable to locate an Kashmiri kindom in 1407 that in any way matches the article. There may be a notable topic that can be written about with foreign language sources, but we will have to do a much better job of establishing that they comply with WP:V. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District#History and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947--between the ultra-specific title and the typo in the date (no space between the comma and 1947), I agree that this is not a useful redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 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 and no merger possible since the target does not exist. Star Mississippi 16:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Digital Access Signalling System 1

Digital Access Signalling System 1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article closely paraphrases part of a section about it on this website. Other than that, there's nothing more than mentions of this signalling system. That Tired Tarantula Burrow 02:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

https://archive.org/details/bte-198407/page/n17/mode/2up?q=%22DASS+Signalling%22
https://archive.org/details/bte-198501/page/n27/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
https://archive.org/details/telecommunicatio0000farr/page/76/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
https://archive.org/details/communicationsys0000brew/page/128/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22
Based on the coverage in these sources, it seems that a discretionary merger of DASS1 and closely related articles such as Digital Access Signalling System 2 into a single article about the history of ISDN in the UK may make sense if somebody decides to write such article in the future. PaulT2022 ( talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, merging sounds like a good idea. That Tired Tarantula Burrow 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:07, 9 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) 03:31, 17 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 05:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jacob Bredesen

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

Major WP:Puff piece, lacking notability under any guideline. Sources are primary, local news or trivial/passing mentions, political achievements are in a tiny municipality. Geschichte ( talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Several of the sources are the Norwegian national broadcaster NRK, where he is not just trivially mentioned / passing. There are more sources and articles online not referenced in the article.
Political work also not really in the local municipal level, but rather the county level, there is among other things debates with parliamentarians and criticism of cabinet policies, and most of the sources I at least find cover non local issues.
However I do agree that the wording and structure suffers from puffery.
I am trying to create articles and content that cover this area, as Wiki was previously missing a lot of content from it. Tried to understand the notability guidelines, but perhaps they are stricter than I was aware.
There are several more individuals I was planning to do biographies of, that have made an impact in the Nordfjord region, so it would be good to understand how high the bar is before I continue this work. A lot of those have a few national articles (such as the case here) and a large amount of local and regional coverage. I was under the assumption that a few national + lots of local / regional would be enough, assuming they are not passing mentions / minor comments in larger articles. Nordfjording ( talk) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:26, 9 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) 03:30, 17 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 Captain Miller (film). (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Captain Miller (soundtrack)

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

I realize that this page recently went through AfD and easily passed, but the point that was missed in the first discussion is that this soundtrack album does not exist and I can find no evidence that there is a planned release. Five singles were released from the film and nothing else. The music section at Captain Miller (film) should certainly suffice. J04n( talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. J04n( talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Captain Miller (film). I think the nominator is correct about what went wrong in the first AfD last week. There are indeed plenty of sources but they are about individual songs that have emerged from the film. None indicate that this collection of songs will be released as a stand-alone soundtrack album. In other words, we can confirm that the songs exist, but the article under discussion here has been set up as an album article so that is what needs to be confirmed in the sources. Until that happens, the songs can be described at the film's article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to ping @ Hey man im josh, Wcquidditch, Geschichte, Kailash29792, and Ozzie10aaaa: and Tame Rhino. I may only speak for myself but nobody said the article was about an album; it's a detailed page about the soundtrack and that soundtrack received coverage. I still think a keep is OK, and although I am still not opposed to redirect, see my comment at last Afd about it. Still opposed to deletion anyway, as nominator and Doomsdayer520 also seem to be, if I understand well. In general, I don't think that such speedy renominations are a good idea unless there's a really urgent problem, but maybe that's just me. If we are looking for a relevant guideline, maybe WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material applies, that states "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Which seems to be the case. But one can also consider the music was released as part of the film. Music in Indian cinema has, as everyone knows, a quite specific role. I am not shocked by a standalone detailed article here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the infoboxes of the article and the main page about the film do indeed indicate "Album"; but that can be easily corrected. A note can even be added indicating that no album was released, only singles.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per Mushy Yank (I believe it is OK as well)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from nominator: merger to Captain Miller (film) is the ideal outcome. The page is written as if there is a soundtrack album which there is not, just 5 singles that have been released from the film. I do not believe that reworking the page and titling it 'Music from Captain Miller (film)' is appropriate. The majority of the sources are reviews for the film that merely mention the music or announcements of the release of one of the singles. J04n( talk page) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I already voted and I'm the outlier, but I will agree with J04n again. The "keep" voters above have provided no convincing evidence that this is an album. An album is a stand-alone item that qualifies for a Wikipedia article if notable, but a group of songs with a common association are not an album or any other stand-alone item. Therefore we have a violation of the unreleased material guideline because no album has been described as something that has been or will be released. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:49, 13 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) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to the film article as above. As a general proposition I'm not in favor of speedy renoms, but it is not disruptive in this case, and I do agree that the previous discussion failed to grapple with the core issue. The article is engaged in a bit of OR by presenting this as an album - it is the collected released songs from the film, and should be presented as such at that article. I see no sourcing that deals with the music collectively apart from the film, so we should not be the first to make that distinction. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:26, 25 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. ✗ plicit 05:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wayne Perryman

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

Some mentions in coverage, but not enough to make me think it passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT, Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE, the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad. It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment. There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches). Regardless, I think notability is met here.
TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I am leaning Keep, although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy. The New York Times, whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source. I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work. Bearian ( talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes. Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that. — Maile ( talk) 03:48, 17 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. primarily because I see no convincing arguments to Keep this article except from an sockpuppet whose contributions were struck. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of flyovers in Pakistan

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

I nominated this article for WP:PROD, which was contested by editor Codenamewolf. This is a curious unreferenced list, whose individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT. Only a handful of the list's entries have standalone articles, and I am not sure that reader interest really justifies a list article (though a category and See also mentions in the other flyover articles may be appropriate). I note that WP:NLIST says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

If editors can find sources that have discussed Pakistan's flyovers as a set, and save this article from deletion, that will be a very welcome outcome of this AfD.

For disclosure, there are four other List of flyovers in [X] or List of flyovers and under-passes in [X] articles (for cities or regions in Pakistan or India) that currently have a PROD tag; if it emerges that there is reasonable doubt that this article should not be deleted, I will remove those tags – or of course, any editor may do so, without waiting to see the consensus that forms here. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Firstly, and most importantly, thank you for cleaning the article and merging the content from the regional lists, which hopefully will allow the related regional list PRODs to go through without contest.
Secondly, I'm unconvinced by the navigational argument. With your cleaning, in the current revision, the number of bluelinks directing to flyovers per se is five ( Sher Shah Bridge, Muslim Town Flyover, Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover, Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover, Nishtar Chowk Flyover), of which four are in Multan. The other entries are either interchanges, redlinks, or redirects either to the roads the flyovers carry or the neighbourhoods where they are sited. (The linked interchanges already have a navigational page: Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan.) The five remaining flyovers are small enough in number to justify inclusion in each other's See also sections, and they could be integrated into the navigational page at Category:Road bridges in Pakistan. In my view, the principal advantage of a category over a link is that it dissuades the kind of WP:OR that the nominated article suffers, from editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Nor am I altogether convinced that anyone reasonably will care enough about "Flyovers in [X] country" as a category for a list article to carry encyclopaedic value; indeed, no other country has this kind of article to my knowledge. We also have Template:Bridges in Pakistan and List of bridges in Pakistan. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of notable flyovers in Pakistan so a stand alone list is justified. We have to find a compromise. This list meets WP:NLIST as well. See this reference. There are many references if you do a search in Pakistani newspapers. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The source you've shared isn't about the flyovers as engineered constructs per se, but a set of interviews with people who live under flyovers in Karachi. That might merit a mention in Karachi#Social issues, not an indiscriminate list of flyovers in Karachi. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Highway infrastructure like this is pretty generic, no indication that these are notable either individually or as a group. Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent to which this list does or does not have a reasonable navigational purpose in light of our list inclusion criteria would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:59, 17 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 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

First Frontier

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Couldn't find any reviews on isfdb, newspapers.com or proquest. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails NBOOK and GNG. Unable to find any independent third party sources that cover this topic in detail. Mostly what I am seeing is affiliated texts on the web, and, in any case, these would not be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:36, 17 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_17&oldid=1210206059"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE