Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

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 merge‎ to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Jalpaiguri bombing

2013 Jalpaiguri bombing (  | 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)

Just a news story, all sources are news coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. The fact they were accused of committing terrorism is noteworthy and should be on their page. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. It might be that Google fails to include sources in the Indian language/scripts, but as far as I can see there are just 85 hits in total, thus it fails WP:GNG. The Banner  talk 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

University of York Swift Society

University of York Swift Society (  | 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 non-notable student society with the article being hung on the non-notable event of Taylor Swift sending something or other to the society. Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 University of the Philippines College of Engineering#Academic departments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (  | 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)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur)

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur) (  | 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 the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. They were focused mainly on Carole Bienaimé, whose article identifies her as married to Besse. Santa monique also uploaded the photos of Bienaimé. Risedemise ( talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Homenetmen

Homenetmen (  | 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 was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies ( talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 ( talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh ( talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Liam Ayoub

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you arguing then to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Athlete articles are required to cite IRS SIGCOV, which is not achieved here. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Curwin Gertse

Curwin Gertse (  | 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 found a handful of sentences of coverage here and here on this rugby player. I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So close to deleting based on available arguments, but at least a little more discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Player made a handful of appearances in one tournament for Sharks, and hasn’t been featured in a squad since. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

CJ Conradie

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible he goes by a different given name. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sphu Msutwana

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum ( talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich ( talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.
Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.
Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.
Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 ( talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 20:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rob Heppler

Rob Heppler (  | 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 a notable person. Article created promotionally. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - per source analysis. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sneakerfreaker.com/search/?query=best-of-the-best-sneakers-2006 ? ? No fails verification ✘ No
https://sneakernews.com/2016/04/01/concepts-x-nike-dunk-sb-lobster/ ? ? No interview ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oMcAwQ19E No primary source No No Rob Heppler uplaaded video on youTube promoting a sneaker ✘ No
https://buscemi.com/pages/our-story No No No landing page for Buscemi footwear. no mention of Heppler ✘ No
https://gosunrisers.com/snicker/ ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/the-wsj-explores-buscemi-and-the-key-to-selling-a-800-sneaker/ ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/4326-Life-love-and-sneakers/ Yes Yes Yes Life, love, and sneakers The culture of high-end kicks is about to blow up in Boston. How many pairs do you have? ✔ Yes
https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1002/p13s02-lign.html Yes Yes No Heppler interviewed about sneaker addiction/collection ✘ No
https://archive.today/20090314015620/http://www.vaporsmagazine.com/2008/11/rob-heppler/ ? can't get page to load ? Unknown
https://www.sneakerfiles.com/nike-dunks-sb-skateboarding/nike-dunk-sb-low-lobster-sport-red-pink-clay/ ? ? No promotion of Nike Dunk SB Low Lobster ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20121023005053/http://www.boston.com/yourlife/fashion/articles/2006/06/01/fit_to_be_tied/ Yes Yes No passing mention as a sneaker enthisiast ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120113195455/http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5ee222e0-5ea5-4fe4-b21c-225424580b03 ? ? No passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
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! 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Campus Explorer

Campus Explorer (  | 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 a notable website. Created by the same editor as Jerry Slavonia, also at AFD. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Cypriot Futsal Cup

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

No sources. Search (in English) does not find anything reliable. WP:PROD declined by RadioactiveBoulevardier Викидим ( talk) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Closing as keep pet consensus. Sources are present in Chinese, which can be incorporated into the artcle. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series)

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series) (  | 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)

TV series fails WP:GNG. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is a translation from zh wiki by a student. I am the supervising instructor but the student chose the topic without required consulations. I told them they need to add reviews and awards or that it will be deleted for lack of notability. I have no further comment except let's wait a few days and see if the student (or anyone else) rescuies it by adding sources to show notability (I concur they are lacking right now). -- Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "《哈哈哈哈哈》有那么好笑吗？" [Is "Hahahahaha" that funny?]. The Paper (in Chinese). 2020-12-01. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "《哈哈哈哈哈》原本的立意是“半工半游”，即“公路旅行”+“体验素人职业”。明星的旅行，这在真人秀里太常见了；因此，《哈哈哈哈哈》的核心看点，是让“五哈”去体验底层工作的酸甜苦辣。但它现在的问题是，明星旅行真人秀占据主要篇幅，体验素人职业的过程仓促又潦草。这就让它的内容呈现与其他户外真人秀并没有明显差异。"

      From Google Translate: "The original concept of "Hahahahaha" was "half work, half travel", that is, "road trip" + "experience of amateur jobs". Celebrity travel is too common in reality shows; therefore, the core attraction of "Hahahahaha" is to let the "five Ha" experience the ups and downs of working at the grassroots level. But its current problem is that the celebrity travel reality show occupies the main part of the show, and the process of experiencing amateur jobs is hasty and sloppy. This makes its content presentation no different from other outdoor reality shows."

    2. Yang, Guang 杨光 (2023-03-31). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季化身旅行种草机" [The third season of "Hahahahaha" turns into a travel recommendation machine] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "目前《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季播到了第四期，受到广大网友的强烈关注，其中最精彩的环节非五哈团的接水游戏莫属了。为了能更深入地了解沈阳文化，东道主杜海涛带五哈团来沈阳洗浴中心体验当地洗浴文化，节目组为考验五哈团的默契，安排大家玩蒙眼接水游戏，却意外造就了这一季综艺之神N度降临、名场面频出的高能环节。"

      From Google Translate: "Currently, the third season of "Hahahahahaha" has reached its fourth episode, which has received strong attention from netizens. The most exciting part of it is the water catching game played by the Wuha Group. In order to have a deeper understanding of Shenyang culture, the host Du Haitao brought the Wuha group to Shenyang Bathing Center to experience the local bathing culture. In order to test the tacit understanding of the Wuha group, the program team arranged for everyone to play a blindfolded water-catching game, which unexpectedly created this season's variety show It is a high-energy session where the God of God comes for the Nth degree and famous scenes occur frequently."

    3. Shen, Jiequn 沈杰群 (2024-03-25). Jiang, Xiaobin 蒋肖斌 (ed.). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季走出国门，以老挝为起点解锁广阔旅行地图" [The fourth season of "Hahahahaha" goes abroad and unlocks a vast travel map starting from Laos]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "3月23日，旅行户外真人秀《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季正式开播。五哈团成员邓超、陈赫、鹿晗、王勉、范志毅、宝石Gem，在2024年走出国门，走向世界，解锁更大的旅行版图。"

      From Google Translate: "On March 23, the fourth season of the travel outdoor reality show "Hahahahaha" officially launched. The members of the Five Ha Group, Deng Chao, Chen He, Lu Han, Wang Mian, Fan Zhiyi, and Gem Gem, will go abroad in 2024, go global, and unlock a larger travel map."

    4. Fu, Yuanyuan 傅圆媛 (2024-03-25). Peng, Simin 彭思敏 (ed.). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季五哈团走出国门，首站老挝团建笑点密集" [The fourth season of "Hahahahaha" has the five Hahaha group going abroad, and the first stop is Laos, with a lot of laughs]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "首期，《五哈4》启程庆典在一座老旧汽修厂拉开序幕，尽管现场搭建拱门，铺设红毯，但看似精心的布置中也多少透露出了“亿”些些“草率”。而启程庆典帷幕落下瞬间，大波神秘黑衣人的追逐让五哈团瞬间惊吓到拔腿就跑四处“逃窜”。"

      From Google Translate: "In the first episode, the departure ceremony of "Wu Ha 4" kicked off in an old auto repair shop. Although an arch was built and a red carpet was laid on the scene, the seemingly careful arrangement also revealed a bit of "sloppiness". When the curtain of the departure ceremony fell, a large group of mysterious men in black chased the Wu Ha group and frightened them so much that they ran away."

    5. "《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季今晚首播 五哈团开启"天坑"东北行" [The third season of "Hahahahaha" premieres tonight. The five Hahaha groups start the "tiankeng" trip to Northeast China.]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2023-03-03. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "区别于上一季的艰难旅行，《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季重新开启“美丽中国行”，在东北三省、福建福州等地体验当地生活，感受充满蓬勃生命力的人间烟火，传递坚强且乐观的精神力量。3月3日起，每周五晚8点准时锁定爱奇艺、腾讯视频，一起收看《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季，和五哈旅行团一起开启破冬奇遇记！"

      From Google Translate: "Different from the difficult journey of the previous season, the third season of "Hahahahaha" restarts the "Beautiful China Tour", experiencing local life in the three northeastern provinces and Fuzhou, Fujian, and other places, feeling the fireworks full of vigorous vitality, and conveying strong and optimistic spiritual power. Starting from March 3, lock in iQiyi and Tencent Video at 8 pm every Friday night to watch the third season of "Hahahahaha", and start the winter adventure with the Five Ha Travel Group!"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hahahahaha ( Chinese: 哈哈哈哈哈) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elbow roomers

Elbow roomers (  | 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)

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. – dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Correction - The article does mention "elbow roomers", but this single mention is not sufficient to establish notability. Still a Delete. – dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing that out, I was on mobile and didn't realize I was only seeing the first few paragraphs. – dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 PRISA#America. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Grupo Latino de Radio

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as a holding company because of a lack of significant coverage. Don't see any plausible redirect either. Let'srun ( talk) 19:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Canadian military victories

List of Canadian military victories (  | 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)

Follow-up to the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of battles fought in South Dakota

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

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 Charlie Hebdo shooting. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2015 Marseille shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED, etc. A shooting incident that only resulted in one injury (and no deaths) is generally not allowed to have an article, because it always happens around the globe WP:ROTM. JuniperChill ( talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge (as short mention) per above. It got a suburb shut down because they thought it was jihadism because of Charlie Hebdo. No one died. That's about it. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sigma (cosmology)

Sigma (cosmology) (  | 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 lacks a definition, focus, and citations, and some parts (e.g., the opening sentence) read very confusingly. All references I can find to a sigma in cosmology in the literature describe velocity dispersion – which incidentally is linked in the closest thing to a definition present in the article – or ordinary standard deviation, so it's not clear what this page should be about. Even if this is a real, distinct concept from other types of sigma, WP:TNT may still be needed. Complex/ Rational 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete I've been sold by the other commments. PianoDan ( talk) 16:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "sigma" is used in so many different contexts in astronomy (for the scatter in some property), we should not redirect it to M-sigma relation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As noted by others, the letter sigma is used to mean a lot of different things in astronomy. This article refers specifically to sigma as meaning stellar velocity dispersion, which is covered elsewhere in other articles, and in any case this article is so poorly written that there's nothing worth salvaging. Aldebarium ( talk) 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The content is bad, and it doesn't make sense to try fixing it. is just a Greek letter, and any field of science is going to use a Greek letter in more than one way; all the more so in this case because is a common convention for standard deviation, so it's likely to be the symbol for the spread in any quantity. So, there's no uniquely good redirect target. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation (  | 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)

Bloated lists full of original research & syntheses of “sources”, most of which do not provide evidence of what they claim to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FreshGames

FreshGames (  | 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)

Created by a mostly single-purpose editor and written like an advertisement. Could not find SIGCOV to support WP:NCORP being passed at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

bizjournals, colombus underground; probably WP:ATD redirect to one of the games? IgelRM ( talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Given the lack of an obvious target between either article of their games that exist, I'd say this is a delete rather than redirect, as said redirect would be unhelpful to readers. Redirect tends to be when there's a clear single target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syed Ibne Abbas

Syed Ibne Abbas (  | 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)

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. LibStar is right, this particular article fails WP:BIO due to a lack of independent in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The only one that seems to qualify could be the first source, and even then I'm not certain about the reliability. Just reads like a rehash of their resume. Pilaz ( talk) 17:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Chaldean Catholic Church. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (  | 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:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 withdrawn by nominator‎. ( non-admin closure) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

P.E.E.

P.E.E. (  | 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 any of WP:BAND or WP:SIGCOV. the article has 4 sources: a link to YouTube for an interview, a page of the band and East Bay Express. when you do some research about the band, the only think you get is about urinating Withdrawn .. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is where there isn't much sources on the internet due to many emo bands being poorly archived. You're gonna find most of these sources on zines. I found a bunch of reviews online from zines like Maximum Rocknroll and Tape Op. These should be reliable
  1. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender in Maximum Rocknroll [9]
  2. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender from AllMusic [10]
  3. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Maximum Rocknroll [11]
  4. A extremely short review of a Pee song in a compilation (see V/A-4 Bands, 2x7”) on Punk Planet. [12]
  5. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Tape Op [13]
  6. P.E.E. - The Roaring Mechanism listed at #20 on Fecking Bahamas (a digital math-rock magazine) as "100 Great Math Rock Albums You've Never Heard" [14]
  7. Yet again, another Maximum Rocknroll review on Miracle Research Center Staff. [15]
I only put sources of reviews, but these should be at least enough for a page (they are all independent from the band). The band also released their second album on Absolutely Kosher Records, which has its own page. The drummer, Andee Connors, is also debatedly notable. He was a drummer in other bands ( J Church (band) and A Minor Forest) and I could find a bunch of sources pertaining to that and his overall music career. I would also say this case of "being no sources online" about an emo band is easily similar to the AfD of Strictly Ballroom (band), which had a decision of "Keep" 49p ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep as per the reasons @ 49p mentioned. The band follows Wikipedia's notability guide as they have enough informational sources independent from the group. The page also now has 12 sources (thanks to 49p). OurAfternoonMalady ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nom: I see now after the page being updated that I have made a mistake. I hereby withdraw my nom. Not sure what is normal procedure for that but I will leave to more experienced users to advise on this FuzzyMagma ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Uchendu

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Uchendu (  | 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 individual in question appears to be a non-notable researcher and climate activist. There is no significant coverage of their work in reliable third-party sources. The existing references consist mainly of personal profiles or brief mentions. GSS  💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Named to the BBC 100 Women ( source + an interview not cited in the page yet), plus coverage in HuffPost in 2016 ( source) and Geographical in 2022 ( source) and TheCable in 2023 ( source) - it seems to me like she's fairly notable. NHCLS ( talk) 11:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Neeraj Kundan

Neeraj Kundan (  | 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 where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 18:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election (  | 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)

Future event, more than three years away. The only reference is a speculative article with some rule-based candidate elimination and guesswork about who might run. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- this can be recreated when more concrete information is available. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 What Remains of Edith Finch. This is a non-binding close due to lack of quorum. Any editor acting in good faith may revert at any time, if sources are found to establish independent notability. Owen× ☎ 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Giant Sparrow

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP with insufficient significant coverage. Ian Dallas, the studio's creative director, may be notable per WP:NARTIST and various sources covering him, but the studio itself doesn't seem to be, and the page was made by an account that made barely any other edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School (  | 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:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jagadbandhu Institution

Jagadbandhu Institution (  | 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:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Relies on WP:PRIMARY. Sources are passing mention only. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Wanderstop. The article's history is preserved in the redirect, and can be moved to a draft if editors wish to incubate this article. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ivy Road

AfDs for this article:
Ivy Road (  | 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:NCORP; the sources are largely about Wanderstop rather than giving significant coverage to the studio. Could be redirected or merged to said game as an alternative to deleting. Either way, I suggest SALTing/protecting the page to prevent recreation, as it has been deleted once already for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy redirect again: If I understand correctly, this draft was moved to AFD-ed mainspace by the creator themselves. @ BarntToust: Try to avoid this by submitting your draft in the future as this situation is bad conduct. IgelRM ( talk) 19:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Self moving a draft to mainspace is perfectly allowed, and it allows for articles to be left unfinished for a while while they're being created, which appears to be what occurred. All protocols were being followed here, besides, obviously, the article failing notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: But if intentionally doing so after a successful AFD seems rather bold? Article for Creation appears exactly suited check if the notability issue can be resolved. Well, sorry BarntToust if I'm missing something here. IgelRM ( talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You're allowed to recreate an article after an AfD if you have discovered clear new sources that might invalidate the AfD result. I do think AfC would have been the right move and one would have to ask if there is a major COI issue here, but the whole moving draft to mainspace thing isn't in itself a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
All well and duly noted. Good to keep in draft until further notability can be established. Probably move most current details into Wanderstor article. Cheers!
BarntToust ( talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keeping it in draftspace is pointless if it is unclear whether it will ever be notable. Draftspace is for articles on notable subjects that are not yet finished. It seems it will be redirected, so the history will be saved if it is ever to be recreated. Otherwise it is best to store it locally on your device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect (to Wanderstop), or perferably re-draftify, per nom. It's too early for a full article and the current article is mostly a repeat of Wanderstop, but it could become notable in the near future. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs] 06:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I'd like to draft it. It may be notable in the future, and I don't think it needs to necessarily re-direct to Wanderstop, or C418 or Davey Wreden for that matter. Too many good re-direct candidates for that to be plausible. ( Karla Zimonja is already a re-direct). BarntToust ( talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that Wanderstop is the best target as it virtually completely overlaps for a redirect and the author may later recreate the draft in any way. IgelRM ( talk) 20:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Theta Delta Kappa

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

Notability not shown, even after research. Naraht ( talk) 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon  mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chiel Meijering

Chiel Meijering (  | 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)

Zero sources and nothing in a Before. Maybe notable for 117 bassoon concertos though. (Was BLPPRODed but removed because there were apparently sources though actually there was nothing but the composer's own sites and those not used as sources.) —  Iadmc ♫ talk  14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:CREATIVE is very clear: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Composers are other creative professionals. There's no exclusion for good reasons. Furthermore, this argument is also a non-argument in the sense that Meijering passes WP:NMUSIC just as well. This not a this or that but rather it is a this and that situation. There's an any easy pass of NMUSIC just as well. gidonb ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Never knew about that alternative spelling. The reviews under that spelling all seem to be about recordings rather than him or his music but that may not matter. If no one objects (I'll withdraw and see if the article can be expanded and better sourced. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No objection. The article is already expanded and better sourced. Ernst Vermeulen is one of the Dutch prime contemporary classical music critics of all times. Nlwiki carries his entry. Please become a bit selective with nominations in the future. Especially with prods. AfD should not be used as a method to force others to reference articles. You can reference these just as well. All Wikipedians should be equal. gidonb ( talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dclemens1971@ Wcquidditch Do you object to my withdrawing? The article has been expanded and sourced and looks to be set for further work. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No objection. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator —  Iadmc ♫ talk  01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls)

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls) (  | 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:NSCHOOL as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of Chicago Bears team records. ✗ plicit 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL (  | 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)

Wikipedia is not a sports database. This level of detail runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, while also not meeting basic notability standards for lists. A higher level summary (i.e. the first table under All-Time Series) may be appropriate for merging, maybe into List of Chicago Bears team records, but this does not justify a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adding that I would support a selective merge to List of Chicago Bears team records on the condition that the list of Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games and holiday games are not included in such a merge. Frank Anchor 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Temple University as an obvious ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine (  | 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. I can't find any secondary coverage about the subject. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗ plicit 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ricco Diack

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Coverage is limited to routine game coverage, team-affiliated sources, and sports databases; there are no examples of independent WP:SIGCOV of this individual player. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply


I have added further sources, including an independent article which largely focuses on the subject, Ricco Diack. Additionally, this is a player that I am confident further material will be published on in the coming season. Partickthistle123 ( talk)

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

The result was delete‎. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (  | 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 can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb ( talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 ( talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 ( talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fairoz Khan

AfDs for this article:
Fairoz Khan (  | 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 wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber

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

Subject started her PhD last year, so it's likely too soon for a pass of our notability guideline for academics and I don't see any other indicators of notability. –  Joe ( talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. The reflist seems not to contain independent sigcov. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. The arguments for deletion or redirection are strong, but ultimately failed to gain much support among participants. Feel free to renominate in one month. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Opay

Opay (  | 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:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

[There used to be a {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} here, in case anyone was confused about the hanging sig and replies. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)] Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Zhou Yahui as WP:ATD as per suggestion by Alpha3031 below. Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing ++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?
Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN  2709-1317 – via AJOL.
Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).
Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.
Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.
Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:
  • this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
  • This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.
I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing ++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CNMall41, I don't know who you may be referring to, but experiences aren't measured by time besides age is just a number. If a new editor had read policies and still continue reading them, he/she can even do better than many years so-called experienced user. It's one of the arguments to avoid in a discussion. Analyse your points and give way for others, and not measuring people's days of editing here. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Let me be clear. My comment was directed at your comment suggesting that HighKing misunderstands NCORP. Yes, time and experience gives people a better understand of how it applies (and has been applied over time). -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand. Let me get you, are you arguing the article doesn't meet WP:NCORP when it meets the general notability guidelines? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
"Let me get you"....I am not sure what this means and I want to AGF but sounds like baiting. I am the one who nominated it for deletion so it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines in my opinion or I would not have done it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I have debated that the article meets WP:GNG and in general, supersedes all other forms of "additional criteria". Arguing that an article doesn't meet WP:NCORP is not necessary when it meets the general. From the argument so far, I have said how the article meets GNG, and why NCORP is correct when it only initiates that an article might be presumed notable. I have given links to Google Scholar, CSE, and other archives or information research places including Google news; all were to indicate what is called WP:SIGCOV. Can the opposing !voters really clarify whether the article doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or lowering it to an additional criteria that presumes notability if there is no GNG. Aside all, and to balance the status, I provided the links to show SIGCOV. What else is then needed for clarification here? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • You seem confused about how to implement our notability guidelines. GNG is a section within our WP:N guidelines which also has a section, WP:SNG dealing with specific topic areas and says "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". Unlike other topic areas, NCORP doesn't add any additional restrictions or criteria so in a real sense, there's no difference between GNG and NCORP, they're the "same" guidelines, with NCORP fine-tuned for this specific topic area, providing explicit guidelines on how to evaluate/ascertain the notability of corporations and organizations. The WP community have found it necessary to introduce SNG's for some topic areas because GNG is a general guideline and by its very nature, being general, can be vague and/or unclear and/or ambiguous when it comes to specific topic areas. Your argument that GNG "supercedes" all other forms of "additional criteria" is entirely incorrect and misconceived. The GNG and SNGs are all part of WP:N guidelines and if an SNG exists for a topic area, then according to WP:N, that's the one we use.
    • With that in mind, the rest of your argument falls away. GNG does not "supercede" all other forms of "additional criteria" because there are no "additional criteria" in NCORP - and the logical extension means that if the topic fails NCORP it has also failed GNG since NCORP is simply providing the guidelines for the exact same criteria (albeit some criteria are applied in a stricter manner). In summary, once again and has been pointed out, none of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP for the reasons provided above with reference to specific sections within NCORP. HighKing ++ 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      You may have taken the wrong words. No one is arguing about SNG here. Though SNG and GNG are parts of WP:N, it's a good imperative to note that when an article meets GNG, there is no more argument to make. Clearly you seem to disassociate the both because you keep saying it fails NCORPS when the article in question meets the criteria for GNG. I think the error here is that no one seem to have addressed the sources I provided. Aside that, I am leaning on a strong analysis of sources from the opposing !voters. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mind responding to deal with specific sources or questions relating to how we implement guidelines, but at this stage, this is a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Your questions have been answered, you just need to accept the answers. Your sources have all been dealt with and they fail GNG/ WP:NCORP. You are also dominating this discussion and you need to step back to allow others a chance to respond. HighKing ++ 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am including a link so closers can review the source table as it would be good for them to see the evaluation. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Well, this has certainly turned into one of the AfDs of all time. I really don't see the point in asserting a topic meets GNG which supersedes NCORP when the 4 requirements are, to a word, identical: Significant, independent, reliable, secondary. I do not believe I can identify three souces meeting the basic, coverage-based criteria as applied to any subject. The analysis surrounding significant coverage seems to focus on whether a credible claim would indicate importance. For example, the central bank listing, the mention of winning an award, being approved to do business, among other things, are examples of claims that would avert an A7, but are not useful example of significant coverage, which requires that the topic of an article be addressed directly and in-detail. Similarly, having deep historical records with coverage all over the web does indicate potential for sources to exist, but are not actual sources, which is typically what is required at a deletion discussion. Pointing towards search engine results or random articles taken from those results is at best incredibly unhelpful, and at worst actively undermines to the case for retention.
There aren't any that particularly stand out positively, but the article in The Africa Report (ISSN 1950-4810 accessible via Gale) is a one sentence statement from them, and a few other mentions acknowledging their existence. That is very far from "directly and in-detail". THe article in The Cable is clearly marked as an ad, an assetion that it meets any of the four criteria would be nonsense. The Daily News Egypt is almost certainly also a press release. And sure, in any article article, it's fine to have sources that don't meet all of the criteria for establishing notability. Bringing that up at AfD, and not the sources that actually do establish notability, is only going to convince people that those sources don't exist. Of the best three sources provided by Vanderwaalforces, the article from Nairametrics covering the acquisition mentions the fintech subsidary in approximatly two sentences, neither of which are secondary; the app review is the guy selecting a bunch of reviews from the google play store... I suppose it might be considered "secondary" on a technicality, but the suggestion that it meets SIGCOV seems dubious, even if we are accepting inherited notability, which is not typical practice. I'm willing to accept the Business Day article as borderline, even though ORGIND would normally suggest that it be excluded, but that's still only one source, not the usual three we look for. I don't see a reasonable justification for this not to be a redirect to the founder Zhou Yahui or another appropriate page. If necessary, some content might be selectively merged, but I don't believe we have what it takes for a standalone article. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Primorial sieve

Primorial sieve (  | 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)

Blatant WP:OR: the unique source is not published and consists of vague consideration on a supposed algorithm that is not even described. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

to D.Lazard
The algorithm IS described!
0. (Ground floor) We divide the number under study by the highest primorial #p — which "fills" no more than 100% of the integer variable used, which has a limited capacity (number of digits).
a) We check the remainder of the division, whether it is a prime number (this is only "on the ground floor"!), but necessarily greater than "p". This case signals that "a" CAN BE a prime number.
b) Otherwise, the number under study "a" is a composite number, and we have one of its divisors (or even two! — at least...)
1. We abandon the use of the primorial function, and from now on in the subsequent floors we use its "nephew": the Van function, choosing its upper argument so that the obtained product of subsequent prime numbers, starting from the lower argument and ending with the upper one — does not exceed the "capacity" of the variable used. The lower argument is the "ceiling" of the previous floor.
2. We check whether the remainder obtained from the division of "a" by #p — is a number relatively prime to "b", and to #p.
a) If so — then "a" CAN BE a prime number
b) If it has common divisors (and THEN there will be at least two of them!) then it is a composite number, and we have its divisors.
3. We loop the procedure from point 2 — that is, we define subsequent values ​​for the lower argument (the "floor" of the Van function) and the upper argument (its "ceiling").
4. Each time we find any divisors of the tested number "a" — we divide it by them, and we only subject the RESULT of this division to further factorization.
5. We proceed in this way until we obtain ALL divisors of the composite number
6. If we do not find any, then they... do not exist! And the number "a" is a prime number, and with 100% CERTAINTY.
What do you not understand? After all, the algorithm is as simple as building a flail... BaSzRafael ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
This page is for the discussion whether the article must be deleted, not for claifying its technical content. If this content may be clarified, this must be done by editing the article, not here.
This being said, the above description is too vague for allowing to verify whether the algorithn is correct and, if it is correct, whether it is more efficient that the existing algorithms. In any case, it seeems to require to know all primes below a given bound, which should made it useless for the number sizes for which factorization is difficult.
Again, this is not to Wikipedia editors to check these things. This is for this reason that reliable WP:secondary sources are required. Up to now, no such sources are available D.Lazard ( talk) 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your answer:
clear, simple and understandable.
I also thank:
PianoDan
David Eppstein
XOR'easter
Chiswick Chap
Russ Woodroofe
all the participants of the discussion, even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry:
- Well, that's a shame, but I understand that Wikipedia is governed by certain indisputable laws, and I have to accept them, even if I don't like them and they act contrary to my expectations.
I also thank you for the fact that even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry, it has not been removed yet, but is publicly available and everyone can also express their opinion on it.
You have devoted your time to me, reading the text and then commenting on it - for which I am grateful. And I would be even more grateful if I received a handful of comments on what to do so that the text remains on Wikipedia. What should be improved in it, what should be improved?
Finally, I would like to pass on the optimistic message that I received from both Mikołajeks and the rest of the team:
- according to the new version, still warm like those buns straight from the bakery, they state that RSA is not threatened, because their belief that the algorithm presented here dismantles RSA - was a mistake, and it resulted from the fact that they did not take into account certain things that simply did not exist earlier in the developed theory.
If suddenly, overnight, encryption became ineffective, civilization would suffer irreversible losses. It would be simply a tragedy, no one would be safe, and certainly not the Internet.
BaSzRafael ( talk) 07:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
RSA is not threatened because, as this article states, this method (if it is an improvement) improves on trial division by using multiplications instead of divisions, achieving only the speedup one would obtain from the relative timing of those two operations, a constant factor. Other factorization methods are far faster, faster than trial divisions by factors that grow very quickly as the numbers involved get large. Such non-constant speedups, even better than the ones already known, would be needed to threaten RSA. Compared to that, the difference between multiplication and division is trivial. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
dziękuję za wyjaśnienia, przydadzą się. BaSzRafael ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Boston Children's Hospital#Research. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Center on Media and Child Health

AfDs for this article:
Center on Media and Child Health (  | 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 evidence of notability. All sources are research carried out , mostly by Michael Rich, but nothing independent discussing the center. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia (  | 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)

On the face of it, this is a politician who should pass NPOL. But, I couldn't find any reliable source online that shows that he won the 2017 election in Uttar Pradesh. The results from the Election Commission of India show that a different person ( Ashish Kumar Singh) won the Bilgram-Mallanwan Assembly constituency seat in 2017. My searches online didn't find any sources that would show that the subject passes GNG. A previous PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was procedural close‎. This has been userfied by Bai0926 ( talk · contribs) to User:Bai0926/Fashion in China (by way of various other titles that have been G6’d, with Clearfrienda ( talk · contribs) being the one to place it at the right spot), with the resulting redirect being given an R2 speedy deletion by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fashion in China.

Fashion in China. (  | 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 should probably be deleted or even merged in some way to Chinese clothing, since only one person was involved and there's a lot of overlap with the existing page. Looking at the talk page I suspect it was a class project of some kind. Smallangryplanet ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LSU Department of Finance

LSU Department of Finance (  | 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 does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

People in the line of succession to the British throne

People in the line of succession to the British throne (  | 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)

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law. Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law. Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f Talk 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source. There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added. WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names (  | 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)

While the phenomenon of using the middle name as first name could have an article (and is already discussed at Middle name#Middle name as primary forename), a list of every single notable person doing this would likely be way too large, and I haven't seen them discussed as a group in reliable sources. For virtually any person on this list, them using their middle name instead of their first name is at best trivia, and not connected to their notability, making this ultimately non-encyclopedic. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Tagged as A3 since the page consists of only links elsewhere and contains no other content whatsoever. I'm surprised it wasn't tagged under this criterion by another reviewer before. Keep since the article has been improved considerably, and is completely different from the empty stub that I nominated for speedy deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 02:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Speedy has been rejected twice. Geschichte ( talk) 08:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I expanded the article and sourced it. If it is kept, the title should probably be changed to Famous people who use their middle names as their first names, and it should probably be alphabetized too, and it also needs categories. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! The expansion is good, but doesn't address the problem of this not being a defining characteristic of the vast majority of people mentioned, making this listing indiscriminate. Indeed, the vast majority of sources treating these people as a group are celebrity gossip sites (BuzzFeed, PopSugar...). Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article is compliant with our verifiability policy and our relevant guideline on stand alone lists, because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, nor is the criteria for inclusion based on it being a defining characteristic. If we went by your defining characteristic argument, there would be no list articles on WP. And your argument about BuzzFeed or PopSugar, or any other of the multiple sources used in the article is really not applicable, because they are not spreading "gossip", rumors, tittle-tattle, unfounded claims or titillating claims about people's lives. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, even if what you call "independent reliable sources" aren't directly making BLP violations, it doesn't mean that they are actually considered reliable for the purpose of notability. See WP:BUZZFEED, WP:WHATCULTURE...
    Also, you can't really compare this to a list of lists (which exist for navigational purposes and operate on different standards). WP:LISTCRITERIA clearly states If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance? In this case, the answer is pretty obviously no for the vast majority of people listed. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've removed whatculture as a source per your comment and RSP, and Buzzfeed is not the sole source used to establish notability, so that is a red herring. WP:LISTCRITERIA also clearly states Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? And the answer is yes, as evidenced by multiple people listed being featured in multiple sources. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE (which this list is) says - Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
    Both of those requirements have been met for people on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Article has been alphabetized and categorized, see below for suggestion on new proposed title, instead of "Famous people". Isaidnoway (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Some of the references are reliable sources, others I'm not sure about. But this does get coverage in Seventeen Magazine, etc. When nominated for deletion, it was just some names without any references. Isaidnoway did a lot of improvements. Dream Focus 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — So editors can get a sense of what the article looked like when it was nominated – June 20, 2024. I also think a more advisable title would be List of people who use their middle names as their first names, since the names on the list are so diverse. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With @ Isaidnoway's recent improvements and the plethora of sources showing that it is indeed a notable list topic, I no longer consider that the article should be deleted, and am ready to retract the nomination if possible. Thanks a lot for your work on the article! Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Terézia Kulová

Terézia Kulová (  | 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 woman has appeared for her national team, but fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. My Google searches are limited to brief mentions on news websites as well as database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Just Stop Oil#2024 without prejudice against also merging relevant content with Stonehenge or other pages, as applicable. There is an overwhelming consensus that this doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Since there is no content violating policy here, there is no requirement to delete the page, and a merge is a perfectly sensible alternative. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vandalism of Stonehenge

Vandalism of Stonehenge (  | 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 event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If the closing admin considers this discussion to have no consensus, feel free to consider this a !vote in favour of redirecting or merging; I don't want my disagreement to contribute to a keep outcome. Daß Wölf 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Consensus against keeping the article is overwhelming. The only question is its disposition. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree, I just felt it didn't hurt to mention :) Daß Wölf 23:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Editors have a consensus that the article should not be kept, and also that this event should be covered in the Just Stop Oil article. There is some division around whether or not any further merging is necessary beyond what has already occurred. For that reason, I suggest we simply redirect to Just Stop Oil#2024 and allow the ordinary WP:BRD process and/or discussion on the redirect target's talk page to work its magic. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    But what if someone is searching for the vandalism of Stonehenge that took place in 2016, 1999 or 1961? Orange sticker ( talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do we have coverage on those incidents? Might it be better to dabify this page? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Red-tailed hawk: I don't think we have coverage from my reading of the discussion, but I agree with your approach. Personally, I would redirect it to Stonehenge, but I have no problem with you closing this and redirecting it to the other destination and allowing people to change the target outside of this AFD via WP:BRD. So, I would say go ahead and close this without further discussion and let people figure this out beyond the AFD. Malinaccier ( talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Redirect target already contains significant information about the subject and is another unjustified WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

King Hiss

King Hiss (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. There is already significant content about the article in the redirect target so I don't think a merge is necessary. This article was basically an unncecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ram-Man

Ram-Man (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. Daranios ( talk) 15:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters per BoomboxTestarossa. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and can be covered at the merge target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Obvious WP:HOAX Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Sydney Super Cup

2024 Sydney Super Cup (  | 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)

Unreferenced article for an international event claimed to be held in six months' time, yet there's not a single mention of it online. The first event was a bit of a lawsuit-fest, and the best I could come up with in a WP:BEFORE search for a future event is this July 2023 article saying that the dispute was settled, with Rangers FC saying that they may participate in future TEG-sponsored events from 2024 to 2026. But the very specific claims here (Inter Miami, Malaysia U-23) look a lot like a hoax, or wishful thinking at best. Prod contested without comment (and other templates removed) by article creator. WP:TOOSOON at my most charitable. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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


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 Racism by country#North America and merge relevant content to other racism-by-country articles, as applicable. There is a rough consensus that while the content is notable, bundling under "North America" is not adequately supported by sources. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Racism in North America

Racism in North America (  | 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 an unnecessary conflagration of Racism in Canada, Racism in Mexico, and Racism in the United States. It should redirect to a list at Racism by country#North America. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh ( talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try relisting this one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There are many sources that discuss racism in Canada, racism in the USA, and racism in Mexico. I highly doubt there are many sources that discuss racism across the entire North American continent, especially as a distinct geographical entity from Latin America/South America. This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole. Astaire ( talk) 06:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the coverage in these sources. The current article is synthetically-constructed, but notability is based on article potential, not article condition. Pinging @ Walsh90210, Garsh2, Astaire, and Zanahary: please re-consider. Left guide ( talk) 07:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not convinced yet.
    • The last three sources (Wong Hall, Wendt, Wilkinson) appear to be using "North America" as a shorthand for Canada and the US, with little or no discussion of Mexico. The first source (Smedley) is overwhelmingly about the US: it only uses the word "Canada" twice in the text, and Mexico is only mentioned glancingly in the context of colonial exploration. Sources that are actually about "racism in North America" should at a minimum discuss all three of the continent's largest countries.
    • The third source (Danso) is printed by Nova Science Publishers, which was classified as a vanity press (i.e., no peer review).
    • The second source (Russell) is the best, but it appears to be discussing the separate countries in isolation, rather than as a coherent "North American" unit. See e.g. "Chapter 4: Immigration", which has sections on "European Immigration in the United States", "Anglophones, Francophones, and Multiculturalism" (in Canada), and "A Dearth of Immigrants in Mexico". Or "Chapter 5: Race Mixture", which has sections on "México Mestizo", "The Canadian Métis", and "Racially Mixed and Socially Black in the United States". Or "Chapter 9: Racial Contours of North America", which has sections on "Legacies of Slavery, War, and Colonialism in the United States", "Mestizos, Indians, and Criollos in Mexico", and "Visible Minorities and First Peoples in Canada". So using this source would result in the same WP:SYNTH issues that the article currently suffers from.
    Astaire ( talk) 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rossi Morreale

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced BLP. The present sources barely mention him or are gossip about his wedding. Ditto any search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:V. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 03:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse (  | 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)

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Malinaccier ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jesse Sylvia

Jesse Sylvia (  | 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 real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 ( talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall ( talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit ( talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LSU Department of Finance

LSU Department of Finance (  | 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 does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arie Trouw

AfDs for this article:
Arie Trouw (  | 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:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for a slew of reasons:
  • nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
  • the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
  • surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
  • besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.
Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Related COIN discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pedestrian69 ExplodingCabbage ( talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 ( talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: COI-spam that does not meet GNG. Melcous ( talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 ( talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And the sources used about his daughter never mention him by name, and only establish that Elise Trouw has a father. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

James Sunter

James Sunter (  | 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)

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka ( talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile ( talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler ( talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Linked five times in the article. Doug butler ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_20&oldid=1231423403"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

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 merge‎ to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Jalpaiguri bombing

2013 Jalpaiguri bombing (  | 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)

Just a news story, all sources are news coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. The fact they were accused of committing terrorism is noteworthy and should be on their page. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Kamtapur Liberation Organisation. It might be that Google fails to include sources in the Indian language/scripts, but as far as I can see there are just 85 hits in total, thus it fails WP:GNG. The Banner  talk 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

University of York Swift Society

University of York Swift Society (  | 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 non-notable student society with the article being hung on the non-notable event of Taylor Swift sending something or other to the society. Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 University of the Philippines College of Engineering#Academic departments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute

UP Diliman Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (  | 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)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. References found via GSearch are mostly primary sources from the University itself. Do note that several notable academics and engineers did study here but Notability is not inherited. Alternatively, redirect to University_of_the_Philippines_College_of_Engineering#Academic_departments per WP:ATD. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur)

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur) (  | 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 the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. They were focused mainly on Carole Bienaimé, whose article identifies her as married to Besse. Santa monique also uploaded the photos of Bienaimé. Risedemise ( talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Homenetmen

Homenetmen (  | 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 was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies ( talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 ( talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh ( talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Liam Ayoub

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you arguing then to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Athlete articles are required to cite IRS SIGCOV, which is not achieved here. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Curwin Gertse

Curwin Gertse (  | 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 found a handful of sentences of coverage here and here on this rugby player. I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So close to deleting based on available arguments, but at least a little more discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Player made a handful of appearances in one tournament for Sharks, and hasn’t been featured in a squad since. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

CJ Conradie

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible he goes by a different given name. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sphu Msutwana

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Clear consensus to keep from all participants other than the nominator. (non-admin closure) Rkieferbaum ( talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar

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

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich ( talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich ( talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —  Saqib ( talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    GM Dogar has obtained significant media courage on various matters. Someone has added links to media coverage given to him below. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. Asadwarraich ( talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

"Lahore CCPO Dogar suspended by federal govt". DAWN.COM. November 6, 2022.
Bhatti, Haseeb (December 2, 2022). "SC reinstates Ghulam Mahmood Dogar as Lahore CCPO". DAWN.COM.
Malik, Mansoor (February 19, 2023). "Another leaked clip adds to Dogar controversy". DAWN.COM.
Bhatti, Haseeb (February 17, 2023). "SC suspends transfer of Lahore police chief Ghulam Mahmood Dogar". DAWN.COM.

2400:ADC7:5104:D400:D539:C3BF:7752:7810 ( talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 20:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rob Heppler

Rob Heppler (  | 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 a notable person. Article created promotionally. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - per source analysis. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sneakerfreaker.com/search/?query=best-of-the-best-sneakers-2006 ? ? No fails verification ✘ No
https://sneakernews.com/2016/04/01/concepts-x-nike-dunk-sb-lobster/ ? ? No interview ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oMcAwQ19E No primary source No No Rob Heppler uplaaded video on youTube promoting a sneaker ✘ No
https://buscemi.com/pages/our-story No No No landing page for Buscemi footwear. no mention of Heppler ✘ No
https://gosunrisers.com/snicker/ ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/the-wsj-explores-buscemi-and-the-key-to-selling-a-800-sneaker/ ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/4326-Life-love-and-sneakers/ Yes Yes Yes Life, love, and sneakers The culture of high-end kicks is about to blow up in Boston. How many pairs do you have? ✔ Yes
https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1002/p13s02-lign.html Yes Yes No Heppler interviewed about sneaker addiction/collection ✘ No
https://archive.today/20090314015620/http://www.vaporsmagazine.com/2008/11/rob-heppler/ ? can't get page to load ? Unknown
https://www.sneakerfiles.com/nike-dunks-sb-skateboarding/nike-dunk-sb-low-lobster-sport-red-pink-clay/ ? ? No promotion of Nike Dunk SB Low Lobster ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20121023005053/http://www.boston.com/yourlife/fashion/articles/2006/06/01/fit_to_be_tied/ Yes Yes No passing mention as a sneaker enthisiast ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120113195455/http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5ee222e0-5ea5-4fe4-b21c-225424580b03 ? ? No passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
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! 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Campus Explorer

Campus Explorer (  | 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 a notable website. Created by the same editor as Jerry Slavonia, also at AFD. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Cypriot Futsal Cup

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

No sources. Search (in English) does not find anything reliable. WP:PROD declined by RadioactiveBoulevardier Викидим ( talk) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Closing as keep pet consensus. Sources are present in Chinese, which can be incorporated into the artcle. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series)

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series) (  | 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)

TV series fails WP:GNG. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. GTrang ( talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is a translation from zh wiki by a student. I am the supervising instructor but the student chose the topic without required consulations. I told them they need to add reviews and awards or that it will be deleted for lack of notability. I have no further comment except let's wait a few days and see if the student (or anyone else) rescuies it by adding sources to show notability (I concur they are lacking right now). -- Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 05:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "《哈哈哈哈哈》有那么好笑吗？" [Is "Hahahahaha" that funny?]. The Paper (in Chinese). 2020-12-01. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "《哈哈哈哈哈》原本的立意是“半工半游”，即“公路旅行”+“体验素人职业”。明星的旅行，这在真人秀里太常见了；因此，《哈哈哈哈哈》的核心看点，是让“五哈”去体验底层工作的酸甜苦辣。但它现在的问题是，明星旅行真人秀占据主要篇幅，体验素人职业的过程仓促又潦草。这就让它的内容呈现与其他户外真人秀并没有明显差异。"

      From Google Translate: "The original concept of "Hahahahaha" was "half work, half travel", that is, "road trip" + "experience of amateur jobs". Celebrity travel is too common in reality shows; therefore, the core attraction of "Hahahahaha" is to let the "five Ha" experience the ups and downs of working at the grassroots level. But its current problem is that the celebrity travel reality show occupies the main part of the show, and the process of experiencing amateur jobs is hasty and sloppy. This makes its content presentation no different from other outdoor reality shows."

    2. Yang, Guang 杨光 (2023-03-31). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季化身旅行种草机" [The third season of "Hahahahaha" turns into a travel recommendation machine] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "目前《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季播到了第四期，受到广大网友的强烈关注，其中最精彩的环节非五哈团的接水游戏莫属了。为了能更深入地了解沈阳文化，东道主杜海涛带五哈团来沈阳洗浴中心体验当地洗浴文化，节目组为考验五哈团的默契，安排大家玩蒙眼接水游戏，却意外造就了这一季综艺之神N度降临、名场面频出的高能环节。"

      From Google Translate: "Currently, the third season of "Hahahahahaha" has reached its fourth episode, which has received strong attention from netizens. The most exciting part of it is the water catching game played by the Wuha Group. In order to have a deeper understanding of Shenyang culture, the host Du Haitao brought the Wuha group to Shenyang Bathing Center to experience the local bathing culture. In order to test the tacit understanding of the Wuha group, the program team arranged for everyone to play a blindfolded water-catching game, which unexpectedly created this season's variety show It is a high-energy session where the God of God comes for the Nth degree and famous scenes occur frequently."

    3. Shen, Jiequn 沈杰群 (2024-03-25). Jiang, Xiaobin 蒋肖斌 (ed.). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季走出国门，以老挝为起点解锁广阔旅行地图" [The fourth season of "Hahahahaha" goes abroad and unlocks a vast travel map starting from Laos]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "3月23日，旅行户外真人秀《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季正式开播。五哈团成员邓超、陈赫、鹿晗、王勉、范志毅、宝石Gem，在2024年走出国门，走向世界，解锁更大的旅行版图。"

      From Google Translate: "On March 23, the fourth season of the travel outdoor reality show "Hahahahaha" officially launched. The members of the Five Ha Group, Deng Chao, Chen He, Lu Han, Wang Mian, Fan Zhiyi, and Gem Gem, will go abroad in 2024, go global, and unlock a larger travel map."

    4. Fu, Yuanyuan 傅圆媛 (2024-03-25). Peng, Simin 彭思敏 (ed.). "《哈哈哈哈哈》第四季五哈团走出国门，首站老挝团建笑点密集" [The fourth season of "Hahahahaha" has the five Hahaha group going abroad, and the first stop is Laos, with a lot of laughs]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.

      The article notes: "首期，《五哈4》启程庆典在一座老旧汽修厂拉开序幕，尽管现场搭建拱门，铺设红毯，但看似精心的布置中也多少透露出了“亿”些些“草率”。而启程庆典帷幕落下瞬间，大波神秘黑衣人的追逐让五哈团瞬间惊吓到拔腿就跑四处“逃窜”。"

      From Google Translate: "In the first episode, the departure ceremony of "Wu Ha 4" kicked off in an old auto repair shop. Although an arch was built and a red carpet was laid on the scene, the seemingly careful arrangement also revealed a bit of "sloppiness". When the curtain of the departure ceremony fell, a large group of mysterious men in black chased the Wu Ha group and frightened them so much that they ran away."

    5. "《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季今晚首播 五哈团开启"天坑"东北行" [The third season of "Hahahahaha" premieres tonight. The five Hahaha groups start the "tiankeng" trip to Northeast China.]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2023-03-03. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "区别于上一季的艰难旅行，《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季重新开启“美丽中国行”，在东北三省、福建福州等地体验当地生活，感受充满蓬勃生命力的人间烟火，传递坚强且乐观的精神力量。3月3日起，每周五晚8点准时锁定爱奇艺、腾讯视频，一起收看《哈哈哈哈哈》第三季，和五哈旅行团一起开启破冬奇遇记！"

      From Google Translate: "Different from the difficult journey of the previous season, the third season of "Hahahahaha" restarts the "Beautiful China Tour", experiencing local life in the three northeastern provinces and Fuzhou, Fujian, and other places, feeling the fireworks full of vigorous vitality, and conveying strong and optimistic spiritual power. Starting from March 3, lock in iQiyi and Tencent Video at 8 pm every Friday night to watch the third season of "Hahahahaha", and start the winter adventure with the Five Ha Travel Group!"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hahahahaha ( Chinese: 哈哈哈哈哈) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elbow roomers

Elbow roomers (  | 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)

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. – dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Correction - The article does mention "elbow roomers", but this single mention is not sufficient to establish notability. Still a Delete. – dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing that out, I was on mobile and didn't realize I was only seeing the first few paragraphs. – dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 PRISA#America. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Grupo Latino de Radio

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as a holding company because of a lack of significant coverage. Don't see any plausible redirect either. Let'srun ( talk) 19:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Canadian military victories

List of Canadian military victories (  | 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)

Follow-up to the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of battles fought in South Dakota

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

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 Charlie Hebdo shooting. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2015 Marseille shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED, etc. A shooting incident that only resulted in one injury (and no deaths) is generally not allowed to have an article, because it always happens around the globe WP:ROTM. JuniperChill ( talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge (as short mention) per above. It got a suburb shut down because they thought it was jihadism because of Charlie Hebdo. No one died. That's about it. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sigma (cosmology)

Sigma (cosmology) (  | 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 lacks a definition, focus, and citations, and some parts (e.g., the opening sentence) read very confusingly. All references I can find to a sigma in cosmology in the literature describe velocity dispersion – which incidentally is linked in the closest thing to a definition present in the article – or ordinary standard deviation, so it's not clear what this page should be about. Even if this is a real, distinct concept from other types of sigma, WP:TNT may still be needed. Complex/ Rational 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete I've been sold by the other commments. PianoDan ( talk) 16:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "sigma" is used in so many different contexts in astronomy (for the scatter in some property), we should not redirect it to M-sigma relation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As noted by others, the letter sigma is used to mean a lot of different things in astronomy. This article refers specifically to sigma as meaning stellar velocity dispersion, which is covered elsewhere in other articles, and in any case this article is so poorly written that there's nothing worth salvaging. Aldebarium ( talk) 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The content is bad, and it doesn't make sense to try fixing it. is just a Greek letter, and any field of science is going to use a Greek letter in more than one way; all the more so in this case because is a common convention for standard deviation, so it's likely to be the symbol for the spread in any quantity. So, there's no uniquely good redirect target. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation (  | 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)

Bloated lists full of original research & syntheses of “sources”, most of which do not provide evidence of what they claim to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FreshGames

FreshGames (  | 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)

Created by a mostly single-purpose editor and written like an advertisement. Could not find SIGCOV to support WP:NCORP being passed at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

bizjournals, colombus underground; probably WP:ATD redirect to one of the games? IgelRM ( talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Given the lack of an obvious target between either article of their games that exist, I'd say this is a delete rather than redirect, as said redirect would be unhelpful to readers. Redirect tends to be when there's a clear single target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Syed Ibne Abbas

Syed Ibne Abbas (  | 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)

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. LibStar is right, this particular article fails WP:BIO due to a lack of independent in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The only one that seems to qualify could be the first source, and even then I'm not certain about the reliability. Just reads like a rehash of their resume. Pilaz ( talk) 17:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Chaldean Catholic Church. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (  | 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:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 withdrawn by nominator‎. ( non-admin closure) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

P.E.E.

P.E.E. (  | 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 any of WP:BAND or WP:SIGCOV. the article has 4 sources: a link to YouTube for an interview, a page of the band and East Bay Express. when you do some research about the band, the only think you get is about urinating Withdrawn .. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This is where there isn't much sources on the internet due to many emo bands being poorly archived. You're gonna find most of these sources on zines. I found a bunch of reviews online from zines like Maximum Rocknroll and Tape Op. These should be reliable
  1. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender in Maximum Rocknroll [9]
  2. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender from AllMusic [10]
  3. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Maximum Rocknroll [11]
  4. A extremely short review of a Pee song in a compilation (see V/A-4 Bands, 2x7”) on Punk Planet. [12]
  5. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Tape Op [13]
  6. P.E.E. - The Roaring Mechanism listed at #20 on Fecking Bahamas (a digital math-rock magazine) as "100 Great Math Rock Albums You've Never Heard" [14]
  7. Yet again, another Maximum Rocknroll review on Miracle Research Center Staff. [15]
I only put sources of reviews, but these should be at least enough for a page (they are all independent from the band). The band also released their second album on Absolutely Kosher Records, which has its own page. The drummer, Andee Connors, is also debatedly notable. He was a drummer in other bands ( J Church (band) and A Minor Forest) and I could find a bunch of sources pertaining to that and his overall music career. I would also say this case of "being no sources online" about an emo band is easily similar to the AfD of Strictly Ballroom (band), which had a decision of "Keep" 49p ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep as per the reasons @ 49p mentioned. The band follows Wikipedia's notability guide as they have enough informational sources independent from the group. The page also now has 12 sources (thanks to 49p). OurAfternoonMalady ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nom: I see now after the page being updated that I have made a mistake. I hereby withdraw my nom. Not sure what is normal procedure for that but I will leave to more experienced users to advise on this FuzzyMagma ( talk) 09:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Uchendu

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Uchendu (  | 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 individual in question appears to be a non-notable researcher and climate activist. There is no significant coverage of their work in reliable third-party sources. The existing references consist mainly of personal profiles or brief mentions. GSS  💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Named to the BBC 100 Women ( source + an interview not cited in the page yet), plus coverage in HuffPost in 2016 ( source) and Geographical in 2022 ( source) and TheCable in 2023 ( source) - it seems to me like she's fairly notable. NHCLS ( talk) 11:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Neeraj Kundan

Neeraj Kundan (  | 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 where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 18:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election (  | 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)

Future event, more than three years away. The only reference is a speculative article with some rule-based candidate elimination and guesswork about who might run. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- this can be recreated when more concrete information is available. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 What Remains of Edith Finch. This is a non-binding close due to lack of quorum. Any editor acting in good faith may revert at any time, if sources are found to establish independent notability. Owen× ☎ 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Giant Sparrow

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP with insufficient significant coverage. Ian Dallas, the studio's creative director, may be notable per WP:NARTIST and various sources covering him, but the studio itself doesn't seem to be, and the page was made by an account that made barely any other edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School (  | 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:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jagadbandhu Institution

Jagadbandhu Institution (  | 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:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Relies on WP:PRIMARY. Sources are passing mention only. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Wanderstop. The article's history is preserved in the redirect, and can be moved to a draft if editors wish to incubate this article. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ivy Road

AfDs for this article:
Ivy Road (  | 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:NCORP; the sources are largely about Wanderstop rather than giving significant coverage to the studio. Could be redirected or merged to said game as an alternative to deleting. Either way, I suggest SALTing/protecting the page to prevent recreation, as it has been deleted once already for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy redirect again: If I understand correctly, this draft was moved to AFD-ed mainspace by the creator themselves. @ BarntToust: Try to avoid this by submitting your draft in the future as this situation is bad conduct. IgelRM ( talk) 19:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Self moving a draft to mainspace is perfectly allowed, and it allows for articles to be left unfinished for a while while they're being created, which appears to be what occurred. All protocols were being followed here, besides, obviously, the article failing notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: But if intentionally doing so after a successful AFD seems rather bold? Article for Creation appears exactly suited check if the notability issue can be resolved. Well, sorry BarntToust if I'm missing something here. IgelRM ( talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You're allowed to recreate an article after an AfD if you have discovered clear new sources that might invalidate the AfD result. I do think AfC would have been the right move and one would have to ask if there is a major COI issue here, but the whole moving draft to mainspace thing isn't in itself a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
All well and duly noted. Good to keep in draft until further notability can be established. Probably move most current details into Wanderstor article. Cheers!
BarntToust ( talk) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keeping it in draftspace is pointless if it is unclear whether it will ever be notable. Draftspace is for articles on notable subjects that are not yet finished. It seems it will be redirected, so the history will be saved if it is ever to be recreated. Otherwise it is best to store it locally on your device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect (to Wanderstop), or perferably re-draftify, per nom. It's too early for a full article and the current article is mostly a repeat of Wanderstop, but it could become notable in the near future. TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs] 06:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I'd like to draft it. It may be notable in the future, and I don't think it needs to necessarily re-direct to Wanderstop, or C418 or Davey Wreden for that matter. Too many good re-direct candidates for that to be plausible. ( Karla Zimonja is already a re-direct). BarntToust ( talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that Wanderstop is the best target as it virtually completely overlaps for a redirect and the author may later recreate the draft in any way. IgelRM ( talk) 20:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Owen× ☎ 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Theta Delta Kappa

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

Notability not shown, even after research. Naraht ( talk) 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator ( non-admin closure) Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon  mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chiel Meijering

Chiel Meijering (  | 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)

Zero sources and nothing in a Before. Maybe notable for 117 bassoon concertos though. (Was BLPPRODed but removed because there were apparently sources though actually there was nothing but the composer's own sites and those not used as sources.) —  Iadmc ♫ talk  14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:CREATIVE is very clear: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Composers are other creative professionals. There's no exclusion for good reasons. Furthermore, this argument is also a non-argument in the sense that Meijering passes WP:NMUSIC just as well. This not a this or that but rather it is a this and that situation. There's an any easy pass of NMUSIC just as well. gidonb ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Never knew about that alternative spelling. The reviews under that spelling all seem to be about recordings rather than him or his music but that may not matter. If no one objects (I'll withdraw and see if the article can be expanded and better sourced. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No objection. The article is already expanded and better sourced. Ernst Vermeulen is one of the Dutch prime contemporary classical music critics of all times. Nlwiki carries his entry. Please become a bit selective with nominations in the future. Especially with prods. AfD should not be used as a method to force others to reference articles. You can reference these just as well. All Wikipedians should be equal. gidonb ( talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dclemens1971@ Wcquidditch Do you object to my withdrawing? The article has been expanded and sourced and looks to be set for further work. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No objection. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator —  Iadmc ♫ talk  01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls)

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls) (  | 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:NSCHOOL as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of Chicago Bears team records. ✗ plicit 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL (  | 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)

Wikipedia is not a sports database. This level of detail runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, while also not meeting basic notability standards for lists. A higher level summary (i.e. the first table under All-Time Series) may be appropriate for merging, maybe into List of Chicago Bears team records, but this does not justify a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adding that I would support a selective merge to List of Chicago Bears team records on the condition that the list of Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games and holiday games are not included in such a merge. Frank Anchor 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Temple University as an obvious ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine (  | 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. I can't find any secondary coverage about the subject. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗ plicit 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ricco Diack

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Coverage is limited to routine game coverage, team-affiliated sources, and sports databases; there are no examples of independent WP:SIGCOV of this individual player. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply


I have added further sources, including an independent article which largely focuses on the subject, Ricco Diack. Additionally, this is a player that I am confident further material will be published on in the coming season. Partickthistle123 ( talk)

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

The result was delete‎. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (  | 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 can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb ( talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb ( talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 ( talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 ( talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fairoz Khan

AfDs for this article:
Fairoz Khan (  | 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 wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber

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

Subject started her PhD last year, so it's likely too soon for a pass of our notability guideline for academics and I don't see any other indicators of notability. –  Joe ( talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nom. The reflist seems not to contain independent sigcov. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. The arguments for deletion or redirection are strong, but ultimately failed to gain much support among participants. Feel free to renominate in one month. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Opay

Opay (  | 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:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

[There used to be a {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} here, in case anyone was confused about the hanging sig and replies. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)] Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Zhou Yahui as WP:ATD as per suggestion by Alpha3031 below. Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing ++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?
Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN  2709-1317 – via AJOL.
Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).
Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.
Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.
Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:
  • this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
  • This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.
I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing ++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing ++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ CNMall41, I don't know who you may be referring to, but experiences aren't measured by time besides age is just a number. If a new editor had read policies and still continue reading them, he/she can even do better than many years so-called experienced user. It's one of the arguments to avoid in a discussion. Analyse your points and give way for others, and not measuring people's days of editing here. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Let me be clear. My comment was directed at your comment suggesting that HighKing misunderstands NCORP. Yes, time and experience gives people a better understand of how it applies (and has been applied over time). -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand. Let me get you, are you arguing the article doesn't meet WP:NCORP when it meets the general notability guidelines? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
"Let me get you"....I am not sure what this means and I want to AGF but sounds like baiting. I am the one who nominated it for deletion so it doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines in my opinion or I would not have done it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As editors have given counterposed readings of the quality of the sources cited, additional editors' impressions of the assembled bibliography would be highly beneficial to determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I have debated that the article meets WP:GNG and in general, supersedes all other forms of "additional criteria". Arguing that an article doesn't meet WP:NCORP is not necessary when it meets the general. From the argument so far, I have said how the article meets GNG, and why NCORP is correct when it only initiates that an article might be presumed notable. I have given links to Google Scholar, CSE, and other archives or information research places including Google news; all were to indicate what is called WP:SIGCOV. Can the opposing !voters really clarify whether the article doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or lowering it to an additional criteria that presumes notability if there is no GNG. Aside all, and to balance the status, I provided the links to show SIGCOV. What else is then needed for clarification here? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • You seem confused about how to implement our notability guidelines. GNG is a section within our WP:N guidelines which also has a section, WP:SNG dealing with specific topic areas and says "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". Unlike other topic areas, NCORP doesn't add any additional restrictions or criteria so in a real sense, there's no difference between GNG and NCORP, they're the "same" guidelines, with NCORP fine-tuned for this specific topic area, providing explicit guidelines on how to evaluate/ascertain the notability of corporations and organizations. The WP community have found it necessary to introduce SNG's for some topic areas because GNG is a general guideline and by its very nature, being general, can be vague and/or unclear and/or ambiguous when it comes to specific topic areas. Your argument that GNG "supercedes" all other forms of "additional criteria" is entirely incorrect and misconceived. The GNG and SNGs are all part of WP:N guidelines and if an SNG exists for a topic area, then according to WP:N, that's the one we use.
    • With that in mind, the rest of your argument falls away. GNG does not "supercede" all other forms of "additional criteria" because there are no "additional criteria" in NCORP - and the logical extension means that if the topic fails NCORP it has also failed GNG since NCORP is simply providing the guidelines for the exact same criteria (albeit some criteria are applied in a stricter manner). In summary, once again and has been pointed out, none of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP for the reasons provided above with reference to specific sections within NCORP. HighKing ++ 13:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      You may have taken the wrong words. No one is arguing about SNG here. Though SNG and GNG are parts of WP:N, it's a good imperative to note that when an article meets GNG, there is no more argument to make. Clearly you seem to disassociate the both because you keep saying it fails NCORPS when the article in question meets the criteria for GNG. I think the error here is that no one seem to have addressed the sources I provided. Aside that, I am leaning on a strong analysis of sources from the opposing !voters. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mind responding to deal with specific sources or questions relating to how we implement guidelines, but at this stage, this is a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Your questions have been answered, you just need to accept the answers. Your sources have all been dealt with and they fail GNG/ WP:NCORP. You are also dominating this discussion and you need to step back to allow others a chance to respond. HighKing ++ 19:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am including a link so closers can review the source table as it would be good for them to see the evaluation. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Well, this has certainly turned into one of the AfDs of all time. I really don't see the point in asserting a topic meets GNG which supersedes NCORP when the 4 requirements are, to a word, identical: Significant, independent, reliable, secondary. I do not believe I can identify three souces meeting the basic, coverage-based criteria as applied to any subject. The analysis surrounding significant coverage seems to focus on whether a credible claim would indicate importance. For example, the central bank listing, the mention of winning an award, being approved to do business, among other things, are examples of claims that would avert an A7, but are not useful example of significant coverage, which requires that the topic of an article be addressed directly and in-detail. Similarly, having deep historical records with coverage all over the web does indicate potential for sources to exist, but are not actual sources, which is typically what is required at a deletion discussion. Pointing towards search engine results or random articles taken from those results is at best incredibly unhelpful, and at worst actively undermines to the case for retention.
There aren't any that particularly stand out positively, but the article in The Africa Report (ISSN 1950-4810 accessible via Gale) is a one sentence statement from them, and a few other mentions acknowledging their existence. That is very far from "directly and in-detail". THe article in The Cable is clearly marked as an ad, an assetion that it meets any of the four criteria would be nonsense. The Daily News Egypt is almost certainly also a press release. And sure, in any article article, it's fine to have sources that don't meet all of the criteria for establishing notability. Bringing that up at AfD, and not the sources that actually do establish notability, is only going to convince people that those sources don't exist. Of the best three sources provided by Vanderwaalforces, the article from Nairametrics covering the acquisition mentions the fintech subsidary in approximatly two sentences, neither of which are secondary; the app review is the guy selecting a bunch of reviews from the google play store... I suppose it might be considered "secondary" on a technicality, but the suggestion that it meets SIGCOV seems dubious, even if we are accepting inherited notability, which is not typical practice. I'm willing to accept the Business Day article as borderline, even though ORGIND would normally suggest that it be excluded, but that's still only one source, not the usual three we look for. I don't see a reasonable justification for this not to be a redirect to the founder Zhou Yahui or another appropriate page. If necessary, some content might be selectively merged, but I don't believe we have what it takes for a standalone article. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Primorial sieve

Primorial sieve (  | 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)

Blatant WP:OR: the unique source is not published and consists of vague consideration on a supposed algorithm that is not even described. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

to D.Lazard
The algorithm IS described!
0. (Ground floor) We divide the number under study by the highest primorial #p — which "fills" no more than 100% of the integer variable used, which has a limited capacity (number of digits).
a) We check the remainder of the division, whether it is a prime number (this is only "on the ground floor"!), but necessarily greater than "p". This case signals that "a" CAN BE a prime number.
b) Otherwise, the number under study "a" is a composite number, and we have one of its divisors (or even two! — at least...)
1. We abandon the use of the primorial function, and from now on in the subsequent floors we use its "nephew": the Van function, choosing its upper argument so that the obtained product of subsequent prime numbers, starting from the lower argument and ending with the upper one — does not exceed the "capacity" of the variable used. The lower argument is the "ceiling" of the previous floor.
2. We check whether the remainder obtained from the division of "a" by #p — is a number relatively prime to "b", and to #p.
a) If so — then "a" CAN BE a prime number
b) If it has common divisors (and THEN there will be at least two of them!) then it is a composite number, and we have its divisors.
3. We loop the procedure from point 2 — that is, we define subsequent values ​​for the lower argument (the "floor" of the Van function) and the upper argument (its "ceiling").
4. Each time we find any divisors of the tested number "a" — we divide it by them, and we only subject the RESULT of this division to further factorization.
5. We proceed in this way until we obtain ALL divisors of the composite number
6. If we do not find any, then they... do not exist! And the number "a" is a prime number, and with 100% CERTAINTY.
What do you not understand? After all, the algorithm is as simple as building a flail... BaSzRafael ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
This page is for the discussion whether the article must be deleted, not for claifying its technical content. If this content may be clarified, this must be done by editing the article, not here.
This being said, the above description is too vague for allowing to verify whether the algorithn is correct and, if it is correct, whether it is more efficient that the existing algorithms. In any case, it seeems to require to know all primes below a given bound, which should made it useless for the number sizes for which factorization is difficult.
Again, this is not to Wikipedia editors to check these things. This is for this reason that reliable WP:secondary sources are required. Up to now, no such sources are available D.Lazard ( talk) 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your answer:
clear, simple and understandable.
I also thank:
PianoDan
David Eppstein
XOR'easter
Chiswick Chap
Russ Woodroofe
all the participants of the discussion, even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry:
- Well, that's a shame, but I understand that Wikipedia is governed by certain indisputable laws, and I have to accept them, even if I don't like them and they act contrary to my expectations.
I also thank you for the fact that even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry, it has not been removed yet, but is publicly available and everyone can also express their opinion on it.
You have devoted your time to me, reading the text and then commenting on it - for which I am grateful. And I would be even more grateful if I received a handful of comments on what to do so that the text remains on Wikipedia. What should be improved in it, what should be improved?
Finally, I would like to pass on the optimistic message that I received from both Mikołajeks and the rest of the team:
- according to the new version, still warm like those buns straight from the bakery, they state that RSA is not threatened, because their belief that the algorithm presented here dismantles RSA - was a mistake, and it resulted from the fact that they did not take into account certain things that simply did not exist earlier in the developed theory.
If suddenly, overnight, encryption became ineffective, civilization would suffer irreversible losses. It would be simply a tragedy, no one would be safe, and certainly not the Internet.
BaSzRafael ( talk) 07:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
RSA is not threatened because, as this article states, this method (if it is an improvement) improves on trial division by using multiplications instead of divisions, achieving only the speedup one would obtain from the relative timing of those two operations, a constant factor. Other factorization methods are far faster, faster than trial divisions by factors that grow very quickly as the numbers involved get large. Such non-constant speedups, even better than the ones already known, would be needed to threaten RSA. Compared to that, the difference between multiplication and division is trivial. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
dziękuję za wyjaśnienia, przydadzą się. BaSzRafael ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Boston Children's Hospital#Research. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Center on Media and Child Health

AfDs for this article:
Center on Media and Child Health (  | 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 evidence of notability. All sources are research carried out , mostly by Michael Rich, but nothing independent discussing the center. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia (  | 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)

On the face of it, this is a politician who should pass NPOL. But, I couldn't find any reliable source online that shows that he won the 2017 election in Uttar Pradesh. The results from the Election Commission of India show that a different person ( Ashish Kumar Singh) won the Bilgram-Mallanwan Assembly constituency seat in 2017. My searches online didn't find any sources that would show that the subject passes GNG. A previous PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was procedural close‎. This has been userfied by Bai0926 ( talk · contribs) to User:Bai0926/Fashion in China (by way of various other titles that have been G6’d, with Clearfrienda ( talk · contribs) being the one to place it at the right spot), with the resulting redirect being given an R2 speedy deletion by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fashion in China.

Fashion in China. (  | 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 should probably be deleted or even merged in some way to Chinese clothing, since only one person was involved and there's a lot of overlap with the existing page. Looking at the talk page I suspect it was a class project of some kind. Smallangryplanet ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LSU Department of Finance

LSU Department of Finance (  | 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 does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

People in the line of succession to the British throne

People in the line of succession to the British throne (  | 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)

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law. Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law. Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f Talk 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source. There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added. WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names (  | 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)

While the phenomenon of using the middle name as first name could have an article (and is already discussed at Middle name#Middle name as primary forename), a list of every single notable person doing this would likely be way too large, and I haven't seen them discussed as a group in reliable sources. For virtually any person on this list, them using their middle name instead of their first name is at best trivia, and not connected to their notability, making this ultimately non-encyclopedic. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Tagged as A3 since the page consists of only links elsewhere and contains no other content whatsoever. I'm surprised it wasn't tagged under this criterion by another reviewer before. Keep since the article has been improved considerably, and is completely different from the empty stub that I nominated for speedy deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 02:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Speedy has been rejected twice. Geschichte ( talk) 08:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I expanded the article and sourced it. If it is kept, the title should probably be changed to Famous people who use their middle names as their first names, and it should probably be alphabetized too, and it also needs categories. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! The expansion is good, but doesn't address the problem of this not being a defining characteristic of the vast majority of people mentioned, making this listing indiscriminate. Indeed, the vast majority of sources treating these people as a group are celebrity gossip sites (BuzzFeed, PopSugar...). Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article is compliant with our verifiability policy and our relevant guideline on stand alone lists, because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, nor is the criteria for inclusion based on it being a defining characteristic. If we went by your defining characteristic argument, there would be no list articles on WP. And your argument about BuzzFeed or PopSugar, or any other of the multiple sources used in the article is really not applicable, because they are not spreading "gossip", rumors, tittle-tattle, unfounded claims or titillating claims about people's lives. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, even if what you call "independent reliable sources" aren't directly making BLP violations, it doesn't mean that they are actually considered reliable for the purpose of notability. See WP:BUZZFEED, WP:WHATCULTURE...
    Also, you can't really compare this to a list of lists (which exist for navigational purposes and operate on different standards). WP:LISTCRITERIA clearly states If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance? In this case, the answer is pretty obviously no for the vast majority of people listed. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've removed whatculture as a source per your comment and RSP, and Buzzfeed is not the sole source used to establish notability, so that is a red herring. WP:LISTCRITERIA also clearly states Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? And the answer is yes, as evidenced by multiple people listed being featured in multiple sources. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE (which this list is) says - Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
    Both of those requirements have been met for people on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Article has been alphabetized and categorized, see below for suggestion on new proposed title, instead of "Famous people". Isaidnoway (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Some of the references are reliable sources, others I'm not sure about. But this does get coverage in Seventeen Magazine, etc. When nominated for deletion, it was just some names without any references. Isaidnoway did a lot of improvements. Dream Focus 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — So editors can get a sense of what the article looked like when it was nominated – June 20, 2024. I also think a more advisable title would be List of people who use their middle names as their first names, since the names on the list are so diverse. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment With @ Isaidnoway's recent improvements and the plethora of sources showing that it is indeed a notable list topic, I no longer consider that the article should be deleted, and am ready to retract the nomination if possible. Thanks a lot for your work on the article! Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Terézia Kulová

Terézia Kulová (  | 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 woman has appeared for her national team, but fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. My Google searches are limited to brief mentions on news websites as well as database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Just Stop Oil#2024 without prejudice against also merging relevant content with Stonehenge or other pages, as applicable. There is an overwhelming consensus that this doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Since there is no content violating policy here, there is no requirement to delete the page, and a merge is a perfectly sensible alternative. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vandalism of Stonehenge

Vandalism of Stonehenge (  | 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 event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If the closing admin considers this discussion to have no consensus, feel free to consider this a !vote in favour of redirecting or merging; I don't want my disagreement to contribute to a keep outcome. Daß Wölf 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Consensus against keeping the article is overwhelming. The only question is its disposition. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree, I just felt it didn't hurt to mention :) Daß Wölf 23:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Editors have a consensus that the article should not be kept, and also that this event should be covered in the Just Stop Oil article. There is some division around whether or not any further merging is necessary beyond what has already occurred. For that reason, I suggest we simply redirect to Just Stop Oil#2024 and allow the ordinary WP:BRD process and/or discussion on the redirect target's talk page to work its magic. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    But what if someone is searching for the vandalism of Stonehenge that took place in 2016, 1999 or 1961? Orange sticker ( talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do we have coverage on those incidents? Might it be better to dabify this page? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Red-tailed hawk: I don't think we have coverage from my reading of the discussion, but I agree with your approach. Personally, I would redirect it to Stonehenge, but I have no problem with you closing this and redirecting it to the other destination and allowing people to change the target outside of this AFD via WP:BRD. So, I would say go ahead and close this without further discussion and let people figure this out beyond the AFD. Malinaccier ( talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Redirect target already contains significant information about the subject and is another unjustified WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

King Hiss

King Hiss (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. There is already significant content about the article in the redirect target so I don't think a merge is necessary. This article was basically an unncecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ram-Man

Ram-Man (  | 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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. Daranios ( talk) 15:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters per BoomboxTestarossa. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and can be covered at the merge target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Obvious WP:HOAX Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Sydney Super Cup

2024 Sydney Super Cup (  | 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)

Unreferenced article for an international event claimed to be held in six months' time, yet there's not a single mention of it online. The first event was a bit of a lawsuit-fest, and the best I could come up with in a WP:BEFORE search for a future event is this July 2023 article saying that the dispute was settled, with Rangers FC saying that they may participate in future TEG-sponsored events from 2024 to 2026. But the very specific claims here (Inter Miami, Malaysia U-23) look a lot like a hoax, or wishful thinking at best. Prod contested without comment (and other templates removed) by article creator. WP:TOOSOON at my most charitable. Wikishovel ( talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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


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 Racism by country#North America and merge relevant content to other racism-by-country articles, as applicable. There is a rough consensus that while the content is notable, bundling under "North America" is not adequately supported by sources. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Racism in North America

Racism in North America (  | 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 an unnecessary conflagration of Racism in Canada, Racism in Mexico, and Racism in the United States. It should redirect to a list at Racism by country#North America. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh ( talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try relisting this one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There are many sources that discuss racism in Canada, racism in the USA, and racism in Mexico. I highly doubt there are many sources that discuss racism across the entire North American continent, especially as a distinct geographical entity from Latin America/South America. This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole. Astaire ( talk) 06:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the coverage in these sources. The current article is synthetically-constructed, but notability is based on article potential, not article condition. Pinging @ Walsh90210, Garsh2, Astaire, and Zanahary: please re-consider. Left guide ( talk) 07:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not convinced yet.
    • The last three sources (Wong Hall, Wendt, Wilkinson) appear to be using "North America" as a shorthand for Canada and the US, with little or no discussion of Mexico. The first source (Smedley) is overwhelmingly about the US: it only uses the word "Canada" twice in the text, and Mexico is only mentioned glancingly in the context of colonial exploration. Sources that are actually about "racism in North America" should at a minimum discuss all three of the continent's largest countries.
    • The third source (Danso) is printed by Nova Science Publishers, which was classified as a vanity press (i.e., no peer review).
    • The second source (Russell) is the best, but it appears to be discussing the separate countries in isolation, rather than as a coherent "North American" unit. See e.g. "Chapter 4: Immigration", which has sections on "European Immigration in the United States", "Anglophones, Francophones, and Multiculturalism" (in Canada), and "A Dearth of Immigrants in Mexico". Or "Chapter 5: Race Mixture", which has sections on "México Mestizo", "The Canadian Métis", and "Racially Mixed and Socially Black in the United States". Or "Chapter 9: Racial Contours of North America", which has sections on "Legacies of Slavery, War, and Colonialism in the United States", "Mestizos, Indians, and Criollos in Mexico", and "Visible Minorities and First Peoples in Canada". So using this source would result in the same WP:SYNTH issues that the article currently suffers from.
    Astaire ( talk) 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rossi Morreale

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced BLP. The present sources barely mention him or are gossip about his wedding. Ditto any search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:V. —  Iadmc ♫ talk  04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 03:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse (  | 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)

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Malinaccier ( talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jesse Sylvia

Jesse Sylvia (  | 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 real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 ( talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall ( talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit ( talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Qux yz ✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LSU Department of Finance

LSU Department of Finance (  | 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 does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete agree with nom that the article content is almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NOTBROCHURE. BrigadierG ( talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arie Trouw

AfDs for this article:
Arie Trouw (  | 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:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for a slew of reasons:
  • nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
  • the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
  • surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
  • besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.
Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage ( talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Related COIN discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pedestrian69 ExplodingCabbage ( talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 ( talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: COI-spam that does not meet GNG. Melcous ( talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 ( talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And the sources used about his daughter never mention him by name, and only establish that Elise Trouw has a father. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

James Sunter

James Sunter (  | 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)

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka ( talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 01:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile ( talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler ( talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Linked five times in the article. Doug butler ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_20&oldid=1231423403"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE