Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus is to Keep this article. Any move to rename or merge this article should start with a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Peekaboo Galaxy

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

Looks OK at a first glance, but fails the notability criteria for astronomical objects on closer inspection. The available sourcing is one paper that has been cited a grand total of 5 times, 3 of those by the original authors and the other 2 being passing mentions. The original announcement was greeted by a typical flash-in-the-pan of pop-science website coverage, all based on press releases. (It's easy to get splashy churned hype about astronomy stories, but much harder to get reporting that passes the "quote a person not involved in the original study" sniff test.) Trim the fluff, and nothing remains. If PGC 5060432 does need to be covered, anything worth saying about it can be covered in a couple sentences in an article about a broader astronomical topic to which it is relevant. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Would keep until it is no longer considered notable. ‹ hamster717🐉› ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WLLS-LP

WLLS-LP (  | talk | history | 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:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source is an FCC license. Let'srun ( talk) 23:14, 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 merge‎ to Amazon Games. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relentless Studios

Relentless Studios (  | talk | history | 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 sufficiently notable. Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games? IgelRM ( talk) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name. It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible, which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release. Askaqp ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article. But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better? IgelRM ( talk) 18:09, 17 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! 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different merge targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 23:12, 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 keep‎. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua N. Haldeman

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

Article has issues with neutrality (seems angled toward showing that the person is less anti-Semitic than sources suggest), is fluffed with unnecessary information, and it seems this person is not sufficiently notable, with the main thing being Elon Musk's grandfather. Calling neurocalometers "a then-controversial expensive device" also seems skewed. Foxsake92 ( talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as creator. Welcome to Wikipedia! It's very unusual for a user's first edits to be an AFD, but that's totally okay!! Do you have suggestions for how we could improve the neutrality? In response to your concerns, neurocalometer sentence has been reworded with attribution rather than wikivoice. As far as Notability goes, Haldeman was famous in his own time for his roles in chiropractic and politics, not because of his descendants -- Notablity is not inherited and the article text never actually mentions Haldeman's grandson, whose life didn't really overlap much with Haldeman's. Feoffer ( talk) 02:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And the other language versions also cite in-depth coverage from CBC News and Business Insider [5]. There are also: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Foxsake92, do you think this meets the criteria at either at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline ( WP:GNG) or Wikipedia:Notability (people) ( WP:BIO)? "issues with neutrality" can be handled at the article and its talk page. Rjjiii ( talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The first was written by the subject himself and the second by his son; they're not independent. –  Joe ( talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources indicated above. Four SIGCOV sources were provided by User:Rjjiii. Even if two are not independent, there are still multiple sources to support notability (and additional sources to support data). Hence Haldeman, already, meets the GNG bar. There are, however, more valid sources than the two that are needed. Plus absolutely no BLP concern, as Haldeman died more than 50 years ago. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb ( talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb

List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb (  | talk | history | 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 phonebook. This has been {{ cn}} tagged for 2 years, and there is no indication that "living in Hampstead Garden Suburb" is a notable concept (as opposed to a thing that some people happen to do). Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:05, 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. There is a consensus here that this list falls under what Wikipedia is not due to its broad scope, and no prejudice against creating shorter, more appropriate lists with narrower selection criteria. Complex/ Rational 22:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Android games

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

Ryan York has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There are half a million Android games. This page is clearly not feasible in this format and is misleading, with so many missing games. It is impossible to list every Android game here. Why some android games are listed, but nòt the other ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan York ( talk • contribs) and transcluded to the log at 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This meets WP: NLIST. Here are seven sources from reputable journalists that demonstrate the subject's notability: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. They discuss subjects ranging from optimizing gaming performance on Android phones to the Google Play Pass to Android games that can be played offline. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 01:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading. Additionally,
Category:Android (operating system) games list already exist and provides a structured way to list such games, which is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these. Specialized databases and resources like the Google Play Store offer extensive, up-to-date lists, making this Wikipedia page redundant and difficult to maintain. Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is. Ryan York ( talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No, none of that's true. This doesn't make sense.

Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading.

How is it misleading? There is a statement at the top of this list that states: This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. That makes it very clear that this list doesn't need to be hundreds of thousands of games long. WP: NLIST, which I'm hoping you've read by now, also says that "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles". That would also make the article much easier to manage.

Category:Android (operating system) games list [sic] already exist [sic] and ... is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these.

That's not a valid reason for deletion: "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Please read WP: NOTDUP.

Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is.

Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This is the wrong venue for these concerns, no matter how many times you insist that this list is "flawed". You need to write this on the Talk page of the article, per WP: ATD-E. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't need to keep saying this. It isn't accurate. Having an implausible scope is not, in fact, a cleanup issue. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Evidently I do, because this is a cleanup issue. I don't think the scope is implausible, and even if it is, this just means that the list should be split into sublists that are manageable (e.g. by genre or name). HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not a good sign when you keep saying the same thing over and over again and deletion stances continue rolling in concurrently. I'd recommend some introspection on what's really going on here, and caution you not to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Administrators look for arguments based on Wikipedia policies when closing discussions, like WP: NLIST. I don't think the current arguments for deletion will hold much weight. At best, most of the reasons here are really just reasons to split the list. I see this going one of two ways: either the list's size can be managed by limiting it to notable games, at which point the article should be kept, or it's too big, at which point we should just split the list by genre or name. Split lists like Lists of murders (edit: and policies like WP: SALAT) show that splitting massive, difficult-to-complete lists is possible, contrary to what has been asserted in this discussion. Also, there is a difference between civil disagreement and bludgeoning -- accusing good-faith editors of violating WP: BLUDGEON isn't funny. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I see it going one way - deletion - because a scope of half a million titles (and rapidly increasing every day) isn't manageable. Perhaps with more editing experience you'll understand what people are trying to tell you. Perhaps you have to "live it" to understand. And bludgeoning can happen even in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, thanks. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Did you also read any of the seven sources that I listed to show that this meets WP: NLIST? HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The manageability of the list, the proposal to limit entries to notable games or create sublists is not a sufficient solution. Even with these measures, the list remains unwieldy and prone to becoming outdated quickly. The effort required to continuously vet and update the list for notability and accuracy is disproportionate to the benefits it provides.
The argument that deletion discussions are not the venue for cleanup concerns overlooks the fundamental issue of the list’s feasibility. Cleanup is indeed necessary, but the extent of the problems with this list—scope, manageability, and sourcing—indicates that deletion is a more appropriate response. The energy and resources required for ongoing maintenance are better directed towards creating high-quality.
Redundancy with existing categories, unmanageable nature, lack of reliable sourcing, and the disproportionate effort required for maintenance. Deletion will streamline Wikipedia’s content and ensure resources are used more effectively to maintain the quality and reliability of the information provided. The scope is simply too broad. There is a reason why there is no "List of Windows games" or "List of Android apps" on this website. Let me give you another example: I personally log into Wikipedia every day to update lists of Microsoft games and triple-A and double-A console games. Even that can be quite impossible. Ryan York ( talk) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
None of this has anything to do with WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You either don't want to understand, or you are trolling. Listing 100,000–500,000 games on this format is not possible. If you want to create multiple Wikipedia articles listing Android games by their year or maybe genre, you are welcome to do so. As of now, this list does not even include 1% of Android games, and it is misleading. It is so broad and not up to date that it is simply impossible to list even 1% of the games here. I recommend you check out the List of Europeans discussion. Ryan York ( talk) 03:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cut the attitude and answer my question. This is not an invitation to grandstand about your edits on articles that have nothing to do with this AfD, to show that you know how many Android games exist, or to call someone a troll just because they disagree with you. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I know there are hundreds of thousands of Android games out there. It's impossible to list them all here, so we'll have to delete this article. Thanks and goodbye Ryan York ( talk) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that this list should be deleted. Attempting to compile a comprehensive list of millions of Android games on Wikipedia is impractical and misleading. Maintaining such a list on Wikipedia would be burdensome and redundant, given the constantly expanding nature of mobile gaming. Deleting this page would uphold Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and relevance, focusing on curated content rather than exhaustive lists. Wariorio10 ( talk) 04:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not a valid reason for deleting an article. Please read WP: NLIST and WP: NOTDUP. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reviewed it already. This list should be deleted due to its massive scope. It's not feasible to list half a million games in this format with sources. The largest list in Wikipedia's history, ' List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements,' pales in comparison to the claims made by this list. Wariorio10 ( talk) 17:39, 28 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 no consensus‎ and no indication one will form to delete this article. A discussion on a merger to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or rename to List of future ships of the United States Navy can continue on the talk as neither requires admin action. Star Mississippi 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Future of the United States Navy

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

Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion. While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list. However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead. Reywas92 Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Walsh90210, renaming is an editing decision that is outside the possible options for an AFD closure. If that is the outcome you seek, you need to argue for a Keep and then a discussion on a page title can happen. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abzû. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Giant Squid (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 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 programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!#Current programming. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Chimpoo Simpoo

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It lacks in-depth analysis or substantial coverage from reputable publications. The references are primarily primary sources or basic descriptions, which do not provide the necessary independent verification to establish the show's notability. M S Hassan ( talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 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 14:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jerry Slavonia

Jerry Slavonia (  | talk | history | 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 is promotional. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 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! 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Chhillar

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

Contested draftify. User:Procyon117 moved over to draft due to poor sourcing but this was reverted by the creator. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG or WP:BIO are met here. The references presented represent the best that can be found on him, as far as I can see. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-amp-stakeholders20240610181025/ No No Contains the text The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same No Coverage is mostly about his company ✘ No
https://www.news18.com/business/real-estate-sustainable-living-smart-tech-defining-todays-bespoke-luxury-homes-8940012.html Yes Yes No One brief quote ✘ No
https://insightconvey.com/landmark-welcomes-a-paradigm-shift-in-workspace-luxury-with-the-unveiling-of-the-landmark-sales-office/ No No No evidence that this is WP:RS No Just one long quote from him ✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders-124061000792_1.html No Sponsored article No As above No Coverage is mostly about his company ✘ No
https://www.landmarkgoc.com/ No He owns this company No No ✘ No
https://www.newsvoir.com/news/news/advertising-branding/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders.html No No This is clearly a press release No ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete: Totally agree with the source assessment table. I also searched for in-depth coverage from reliable sources but could not find any. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage and achievements to satisfy notability about the subject. Page also reads as promotion. RangersRus ( talk) 13:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Which one is unreliable sources? Please be specific. Also, I am trying to publish my first article, please help me here. Thanks. Johnbt21 ( talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all unreliable. Business Standard has Advertorial disclaimer, "The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same." Source like insightconvoy are views shared by the subject himself. Others are all company sites. News18 have nothing of great significant coverage and noteworthy achievements. RangersRus ( talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    So you're saying that neither this person nor the company exists? Visit Landmark Cyber Park, Sector-67, Gurgaon, and see for yourself. Meanwhile, all the information mentioned here is true and from reliable sources. Your arguments are baseless. Johnbt21 ( talk) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    You did not understand what I was saying. Please take time to review WP:GNG and WP:BIO that will be helpful for creating a page with reliable sources. RangersRus ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Great Immigrants Award

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

A non-notable award (to 35 people in 2203), with no obvious selection criteria or monetary reward. Coverage is press releases and PR. Could be a redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Possibly a vanity award, a spam magnet at least. Edwardx ( talk) 20:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Edwardx,
Please find my reply below. Of course, any further questions I would most certainly answer. This is my first encounter with the Deletion process and I want to make sure it is done properly.
thanks,
Ronald Sexton
I wish to argue in the strongest terms for the Great Immigrant Award remain as an entry in Wikipedia. The award is not a vanity prize, no one can purchase this award and no marketing services are involved.
Adding this to the selection section makes for more clarification:
The award is made by Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic foundation established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding. In keeping with this mandate, the Corporation's work focuses on the issues that Andrew Carnegie considered of paramount importance: international peace, the advancement of education and knowledge, and the strength of our democracy. The Great Immigrants award is a part of its democracy program and recognizes naturalized Americans who have made significant contributions that strengthen our democracy and enrich our society. The award is not available for purchase or as a PR/marketing offering. The award aims to bring awareness to the positive contributions of naturalized Americans at large.
The award was begun by the Corporation’s previous President Vartan Gregorian. An immigrant himself, who wish to bring attention the importance of immigrants in all aspects of American life. I am the primary contributor and based this entry on the Vilcek Prize entry. Ronald Sexton ( talk) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
In regards to for spam magnet, I was in the process of changing the link in the list of awardees to their individual Wikipedia page instead of going to the Corporation's website. Ronald Sexton ( talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The awards have received coverage in secondary RS to establish notability, including the AP, UPI, Jewish Journal, and analysis in scholarly tomes [10]. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The deletion criteria states that spam is a reason for deletion only in the context of articles "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." That is not the case here, as there is reliable sources coverage, and it is an award of one of the most notable philanthropic organizations in the world. Therefore, the concern about being a "spam magnet" is not a proper deletion reason, otherwise millions of articles would be put up for deletion, as we are constantly under duress from spam. Also, if the point in the initial nomination was that it was only given "to 35 people in 2023" (typo fixed) that's not a good argument. The quantity of awardees per year has never been a valid argument for notability (see the Nobel or Pulitzer Prizes where they typically award fewer than 35 entities per year) as the whole point of an award is that it has standards for selectivity. The article could be made more NPOV, but deletion is not justified. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:55, 30 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! 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Manichandra

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Was a contestant on 4 games shows and won 1. And is a choreographer. Sources (and article content) are just facts related to that. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. Creator is indeffed for abuse of multiple accounts. North8000 ( talk) 19:26, 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 redirected‎ per last AFD closed yesterday. There was some edit warring going on with that redirect, and it is now fully protected. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tiger (2007 film)

AfDs for this article:
Tiger (2007 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate references to satisfy WP:NFILM, either may be deleted or redirected with relevant articles. Pinakpani ( talk) 18:41, 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 keep‎. Please add sources found into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

God Sent Me

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

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.

      I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."

    2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Gibraltar Socialist Labour Youth

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

A branch of a Gibraltar political party fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in any WP:SIRS. (A couple of churnalistic sources are available, but as WP:INTERVIEW-based journalism they would be considered primary sources.) Moreover, WP:BRANCH would apply since it's a sub-organization of the GSLP. Sources in the article don't even reference the subject. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party as was previous done prior to reversion by the creator. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:46, 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. Although consensus is to redirect to Channa quinquefasciata, there is no article for that. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Channa torsaensis

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

Only source was a predatory journal doi: 10.18782/2320-7051.7131 Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep two potential sources in taxonbar, as well as Dey, Nur, Raychowdhury, Sarkar, Singh & Barat, 2018 mentioned in the taxobox. Seems like enough RS without even going to the library.
    awkwafaba ( 📥) 02:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's the predatory journal + a database that cites the predatory journal. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect At first blush, the fact that a species has been described in a predatory journal should not be a problem. With taxonomic descriptions, the proof is in the pudding; if the major databases take them on and perpetuate them without comment, then things are usually fine for our purposes (these guys do check, more solidly than we can). However, in this case the assignment is actually considered doubtful. This article suggests synonymy to Channa quinquefasciata (We review recent descriptions of species of the genus Channa and conclude [...] that C. torsaensis is not sufficiently diagnosed from C. quinquefasciata), and Eschmeyer's Catalogue goes with that reading (Current status: Synonym of Channa quinquefasciata Praveenraj, Uma, Knight, Moulitharan, Balasubramanian, Bineesh & Bleher 2018.) This suggests that the article should be redirected to Channa quinquefasciata, which would have to be established as a stub. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I added the word "disputed" to the lede. If the name Channa torsaensis has not been explicitly rejected, perhaps it should be kept until then, and the reference from a predatory journal reinstated. Anyone interested in creating a stub for another species in this genus may want to start with the information in the corresponding page in Wikidata, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q117204868 for Channa quinquefasciata and in WikiSpecies. Also, Ralf Britz, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21341156 the researcher who disputes the name, might be worth creating an article about. See also species:Ralf_Britz Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Elmidae. It looks like the name was initially accepted into FishBase and transferred from there to WoRMS, but currently, searching on Channa in FishBase and clicking on the entry for C. torsaensis gets the message "Species name is not in the public version of FishBase." Eschmeyer's Catalog also synonymizes it with C. quinquefasciata. Since C. torsaensis is not accepted as a distinct species by these taxonomic authorities, I think redirection is appropriate. Choess ( talk) 03:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Elmidae (or delete if nobody gets around to writing an article for C. quinquefasciata by the time this AfD closes). It is interesting that ITIS has a record for it. ITIS has been partially down for a couple days (search function works, but taxon records can't be viewed), so I don't know what it actually says. ITIS generally gets their fish taxonomy from Eschmeyer's Catalog, and doesn't get updated particularly frequently, but I'd guess the ITIS record would indicate that this species was initially accepted by Eschmeyer. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 17:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race

Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following up on Talk:Australian Grand Prix#Merge proposal, there is support for deletion on the grounds of notability, with no suitable merge target as an alternative to deletion. The results are unreferenced; the single reference is not independent of the topic. Klbrain ( talk) 16:12, 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 delete‎. Complex/ Rational 17:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Woody Outlaw

Woody Outlaw (  | talk | history | 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 concerns. [11] is about him ... and contradicts the one fact in the article. I didn't find any other substantial coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk) 16:10, 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. Complex/ Rational 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Schwinghammer

Paul Schwinghammer (  | talk | history | 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. No substantial coverage of fishing; no ability to tell if any of the other "Paul Schwinghammer" search results are about the same person; no credible claim that any of his fishing tournament results are important. Walsh90210 ( talk) 16:06, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knives Out (film series)

AfDs for this article:
Knives Out (film 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)

Redrafitify as too soon per MOS:FILMSERIES which recommends three films, currently only two have been released for this series with a third planned, it'll be more necessary if the third is released but that's crystal ball. Indagate ( talk) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: While I agree with Indagate's rationale that this is still too soon and technically against the film series MOS, I see no harm in keeping it up now that it is here. That in mind, @ DisneyMetalhead, it is typically best practice to have a talk page discussion at one of the main related articles (ie at Talk:Knives Out) BEFORE submitting these types of drafts for an AfC, as AfC is not always aware of the film MOS guidelines, case in point, what we have here. This article is definitely in need of major ref additions and cleanup throughout, which probably should have been squared away before a move, though those can always be rectified. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Expansion and/or additional refs/details can be added at any point in time. I did not think it would be controversial at all to create a film article about the collective details of the film series as a whole. DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Third film is already in production and has it's own article. Upcoming films incredibly rarely get canned once they've began shooting. If the third film itself can already have an article I see no guideline reason why the film series can not. ★Trekker ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Deleting the article for a film series with two movies out and a third actively filming seems a bit hasty. Many series follow this pattern. The third movie even has its own page! Filming has already begun, which makes cancellation very unlikely in the industry. Waqar 💬 17:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Signature Yashmagh

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

Small Emirati clothing brand with one retail location - coverage is low quality churnalism/promotional. No evidence of GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:41, 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Birel

Birel (  | talk | history | 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 only references corporate sources. It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons. Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable. JM 12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • [13] "È Lissone la Maranello dei go-kart campioni del mondo", 30 April 1986 p. 32 ( Milan edition)
  • [14] "In kart alla conquista dell'America", 12 May 1990 p. 45
  • [15] "È florida in Italia l'industria dei kart", 24 September 1977, p. 17
  • Coverage of a 2014 merger on Gazzetta dello Sport: [16]
  • An in-depth review of one of their karts on tkart.it, specialized magazine: [17]

Broc ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I agree based on these sources this seems notable, I don't have WP:LIBRARY access so much appreciated. If no other arguments are put forward this seems to pass WP:GNG JM 12624 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:09, 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. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Beachhead Solutions

Beachhead Solutions (  | talk | history | 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 the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon ( talk) 00:28, 30 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! 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shafkat Saeed

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:07, 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. But if someone wants to actively improve it, happy to provide as a draft Star Mississippi 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

ఐ 20

ఐ 20 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. 2 of the 3 sources appear to be copies of each other (I couldn't access the third), and no reliable sources were found online. Does not meet WP:NFILM. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Could the article title instead be the English translation? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the title using another script doesn't help searching; regardless, I can't find mentions of this. The sources are listed as marginal reliability per Cite Highlighter, and I don't see any others we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:31, 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 Torchwood (audio drama series)#Background. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Torchwood Archive

The Torchwood Archive (  | talk | history | 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 enough reliable independent coverage - all I've been able to find is self-published blogs posting reviews. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 13:22, 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. Per author's request. – robertsky ( talk) 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Toby Britton

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

Reason Cricketer from Jersey therefore non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrug02 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 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. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Josh Garvin

Josh Garvin (  | talk | history | 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:toosoon Notability; has not yet been elected to a post conferring notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:24, 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 Leon Thomas III. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Rascals (producers)

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

Could not find substantial coverage of the duo or recognition of their work, so no apparent notability by our standards. This should probably be redirected to Leon Thomas III since his article mentions the group multiple times and includes all the same credits. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 10:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 12:06, 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 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi ( talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:58, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

TwoTiime

TwoTiime (  | talk | history | 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:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:58, 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. Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Lovekesh Kataria

Lovekesh Kataria (  | talk | history | 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 existing sources in the article are mostly routine coverage from and related to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi TV series) season 3 show which makes it a case of BLP1E. Being a contestant on a Bigg Boss show does not inherently make the subject notable. A WP:BEFORE shows that the sources go back to 2023, but they are all related to the same show. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Easy Delete due to lack of notability or claim of such —  Iadmc ♫ talk  11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Jeraxmoira delete! 2403:6200:8851:9199:458:B9EF:9898:F8E9 ( talk) 13:13, 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. Star Mississippi 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Hairbrain Scheme

The Hairbrain Scheme (  | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC, article is built heavily on puffery, and is unsourced. Free Realist 9 ( talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it is the same band, but they appear to have been the second support act on another band's tour [37], so it doesn't really make them notable. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree. Would also point out that the Daily Nexus (referenced above) is a student newspaper so doesn't count toward notability. Cielquiparle ( talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's some info here, but it's hard to tell how well-known this band really was. The sources look mostly local, and they only put out a couple albums on small labels. Maybe with more evidence of broader impact, the article could stay, but right now it seems a bit thin. Waqar 💬 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sevda Jafarova

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Marek Švec (footballer)

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

The article of this men's footballer has not received enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.

The only secondary source I could find is SME's sub-website My Nitra. It mentions Marek Švec scoring a goal in one paragraph after translation: "The oldest and the youngest players scored a valuable draw. Anton Sloboda was everywhere, and we could see the 34-year-old fighter passing between the stoppers in the back, serving teammates in the middle and setting up a goal for the teenager Marek Švec in the front. The academy graduate scored his third goal, no one under the age of 18 in the top 30 European leagues has scored more in a season... Wow! The youngest debutant in the history of FC ViOn will celebrate adulthood only on New Year's Eve and has already made 22 league starts with five goals." The coverage of Švec is written in bold, but something tells me that the rest are more of a trivial mention.

If this article gets deleted, we should consider moving "Marek Švec (wrestler)" to just "Marek Švec".

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 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 Jersey women Twenty20 International cricketers#Florrie Copley. with thanks to Beanie for adding her there to make this viable Star Mississippi 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Florrie Copley

Florrie Copley (  | talk | history | 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 cricketer, who fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Article is just full of WP:REFBOMBS, with none of them contributing towards significant coverage about the player. That's what you can find at a simple search- [40] RoboCric Let's chat 10:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Curb Safe Charmer: Firstly, the mentioned player hasn't yet played in a global T20 WC qualifier. Secondly, WP:OFFCRIC just states that players participating in these matches may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. According to WP:NCRIC, as she has not played for a Test-playing nation, this criterion also fails. And the only other way is GNG, which is also not satisfied. RoboCric Let's chat 10:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, so 2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Europe Qualifier isn't a global T20 WC qualifier? My mistake. I will leave this one to the experts! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The qualifier mentioned is the European stage of the qualifying process for the global World Cup. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Curb Safe Charmer Forgot to tag in my reply. Still new to this! Apologies. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Curb Safe Charmer 2024 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier- This is what global qualifier means. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RoboCric so you're conceding she has played in a global qualifier now? Shrug02 ( talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Shrug02 No, she has played in 2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Europe Qualifier not the global qualifier. You first need to understand how a World Cup qualification works. Anyway, Global qualifier is not an issue here. He still fails WP:GNG and point1# WP:NCRIC. RoboCric Let's chat 14:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RoboCric He? The subject is a woman. Glad to know you read it carefully Shrug02 ( talk) 14:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Shrug02 Are you raising doubts that I've not reviewed it properly. An English error on He/She cannot prove that I did not do a WP:BEFORE. In the previous sentence, I did use "She". And you know mistakes happen. RoboCric Let's chat 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I really don't care any more. As I stated below I've db-author requested all my Jersey cricket articles be deleted. Have a good day and enjoy being a reviewer. Shrug02 ( talk) 14:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
All deleted now, except the couple that are subject to AFD, so you can be safe in the knowledge that yet more trivial stuff to do with small countries has been expunged @ RoboCric Shrug02 ( talk) 14:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Florrie Copley is notable as she is one of only 2 players to play in the inaugural women's inter-insular cup and Jersey's first women's T20 international (a match in which she top scored). She has played in a world cup qualifying tournament taking wickets in both matches she played in. This is all backed up by citations from the BBC and Jersey Evening Post among others. There is limited scoop for sources for Jersey and even more so for women's sport in Jersey. It is not like the USA or India where there are hundreds of media organisations. Florrie Copley is a notable figure for cricket and women's sport in general in Jersey and the wider Channel Islands. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:14, 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 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ramil Hashimli

Ramil Hashimli (  | talk | history | 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wakefield Trinity players. Star Mississippi 12:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jon Molloy

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements ( 1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update ( 1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates ( List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 11 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! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There seem to be a few articles with more than trivial mention. Given the time period, I also suspect there may be additional sources out there that are not reflected by internet sources. At least weak support for keeping. – notwally ( talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Baffled at the assertions of SIGCOV here. The source linked above is 229 words, of which all but ~5 sentences are direct quotes. The remainder include a couple sentences summarizing what he says in a quote (not independent analysis) and/or relating "what he feels" (ditto), e.g. But after a lengthy time rehabilitating, Molloy is now over the worst of it. and The young forward is hoping to push on and make a big impression with the Giants. With last season almost being forgotten about, Molloy now can set out some targets to work towards – and again it may also involve going out on loan., both of which are immediately followed by more detailed quotes from him. Essentially the only secondary independent coverage is a single sentence mentioning he missed a season due to injury. Nowhere near IRS SIGCOV. This is also a British player from the 2010s, well into the internet news era in a country with highly accessible digital media, so I am very skeptical of claims that coverage exists offline somewhere. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players: Thorough source analysis by JoelleJay removes the basis for standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Strong sources to support the importance of that person. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Normanhunter2, which material do you believe is non-routine SIGCOV in IRS sources? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    My stance on the potential deletion of this article is that it should be retained, primarily due to the credibility of the 9 sources supporting it. These sources, I believe, are robust enough to establish the article's notability.
    Some users here may have stronger opinions based on the WP:SIGCOV of this article, but I see potential for improvement. A 'weak keep' is possible for me because this is a notable topic, and there are likely more substantial sources waiting to be added to enhance the article. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players. Lack of SIGCOV per JoelleJay’s source analysis. This is the better of the two proposed redirect targets as the subject played most of his career with this club. Frank Anchor 18:22, 28 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 Tarangnan#Barangays. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Dapdap

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

Similar issue as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cansolabao, Samar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source here ( [41]) mainly speaks of a landmark in the barangay, and does not thoroughly discuss the barangay itself. Possible failure to comply WP:GEOLAND. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ambivu 3D Workstation

Ambivu 3D Workstation (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli ( talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: I agree that this fails WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:05, 28 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! 07:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of battles in Kinmen

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Penghu, I don't see the reason why this would be its own article, as opposed to the conflicts being covered in the Kinmen article (where they are already covered). toweli ( talk) 07:59, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nolan McGuire

Nolan McGuire (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jats in Rajasthan politics

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

Unnecessary glorification of caste. See WP:FANCRUFT. None of the cited sources give any importance to the caste. There is also blatant violation of BLPs across this article because as per WP:CASTEID it is necessary for the subject to state their caste in their own words. Ratnahastin ( talk) 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Lead of this article promotes this caste and fails to meet encyclopedic standards and other information violates BLP policy per WP:CASTEID. Based on the current content of the article, it appears that the intention behind creating this article was solely to glorify a particular caste. This is not the first time TheSlumPanda has done this; they have previously promoted caste here. Looking at their editing history, it seems they have mainly focused on caste-related articles. I am worried they might not be familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:GSCASTE. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've notified them of WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA. Ratnahastin ( talk) 16:26, 28 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 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Gaurav Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul ( talk) 11:57, 20 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! 06:36, 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 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sergey Skabelkin

Sergey Skabelkin (  | talk | history | 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 person is not notable; sources are about companies or projects. Many facts are just there with completely zero sources 鲁纳娄于 ( talk) 09:53, 20 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! 06:35, 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! 05:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

HLSW

HLSW (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli ( talk) 06:21, 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. since it appears in this case that the redirect is not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 03:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Enhanced network selection

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt ( talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:27, 20 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! 05:23, 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 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Adam Kendrick

Adam Kendrick (  | talk | history | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg ( talk) 04:10, 20 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! 05:20, 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 merge‎ to Jean-Marie Le Pen. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Blue, White and Red Rally

Blue, White and Red Rally (  | talk | history | 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 fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 20 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! 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it. Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party. I would suggest merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion. Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted‎ by Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as " G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sebastian River Area Chamber of Commerce

Sebastian River Area Chamber of Commerce (  | talk | history | 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 no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 03:08, 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 already deleted‎ by @ Bbb23: as a G5. Closing as moot. Star Mississippi 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Eagle Eye Home Care

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to advertorials. KH-1 ( talk) 01:46, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tbennert ( talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Why is only this tournament nominated? That makes no sense with other regional qualifying tournaments being notable. And men's tournaments also being notable. Yes, it can do with more independent sources but qualifying tournaments are part of the international cycle for global tournaments. The Banner  talk 16:09, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ SL93 ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mitchell Waite

Mitchell Waite (  | talk | history | 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 no significant coverage, there is none in the article, and it reads like an advertisement. A PROD was contested in 2013. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  : Very PROMO. I can only find places to buy his books, no reviews... Nothing about this individual either, no mentions in RS. delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk) 03:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yes, the article needs a rewrite and citations. However, it turns out this guy was a big deal in 1970s and '80s computing. A search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a few reviews of his work in a places such as SciTech Book News and BioScience, along with this article in the New York Times covering some his work ( link) and this article from another newspaper where Waite discusses his memories of Steve Jobs. However, where I was truly overwhelmed with citations supporting this person's notability was in a search in the Internet Archive. Turns out his work was heavily covered in computer magazines and journals of the 1970s and '80s, with that search returning over a thousand results. Yes, some the results are ads for his books but there are also what appear to be hundreds of reviews or mentions of his books in Compute!, Byte Magazine, Creative Computing, and many other publications. For examples of these reviews, see the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Please note there are many more reviews, so I'm not attempting to link to all of them. As another example of his notability, the June 1986 issue of Amstrad Computer User states that "The de facto references in this sphere are the works of one Mitchell Waite who, with a crew of collaborators made writing CP/M hooks a one-man industry in the CP/M heyday around 1980." ( "Mitchell+Waite" link). Based on all these reviews of his work, I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You have definitely shown notability. I wish I could withdraw this, but I can't with three prior deletes. SL93 ( talk) 23:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It appears one of the editors changed their mind. Perhaps if we contact the other two editors and ask them to weigh in? I'm also willing to work on improving the article with the citations and other info I've found if the article is kept. SouthernNights ( talk) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've now cleaned up the article and added new info and citations. Also, Waite's life and work is heavily featured in a large section of the book Code Nation: Personal Computing and the Learn to Program Movement in America. I've added info from this to the article. That book makes a strong case that Waite was instrumental through his books in encouraging the "rapid development of the Mac platform in the 1980s." SouthernNights ( talk) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The new sources added from the 1990s help improve the article, we have enough to show notability now. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:42, 30 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.

Closing as Soft Deletion as one participant is just "leaning towards Delete". I can also see this content being merged elsewhere should it be suitable for an article on public executions in the U.S. . Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hurt Hardy

Hurt Hardy (  | talk | history | 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 notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.
Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.
However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)
I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.
The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."
I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary ( talk) 12:44, 29 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_27&oldid=1232844520"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus is to Keep this article. Any move to rename or merge this article should start with a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Peekaboo Galaxy

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

Looks OK at a first glance, but fails the notability criteria for astronomical objects on closer inspection. The available sourcing is one paper that has been cited a grand total of 5 times, 3 of those by the original authors and the other 2 being passing mentions. The original announcement was greeted by a typical flash-in-the-pan of pop-science website coverage, all based on press releases. (It's easy to get splashy churned hype about astronomy stories, but much harder to get reporting that passes the "quote a person not involved in the original study" sniff test.) Trim the fluff, and nothing remains. If PGC 5060432 does need to be covered, anything worth saying about it can be covered in a couple sentences in an article about a broader astronomical topic to which it is relevant. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Would keep until it is no longer considered notable. ‹ hamster717🐉› ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WLLS-LP

WLLS-LP (  | talk | history | 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:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source is an FCC license. Let'srun ( talk) 23:14, 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 merge‎ to Amazon Games. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relentless Studios

Relentless Studios (  | talk | history | 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 sufficiently notable. Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games? IgelRM ( talk) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name. It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible, which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release. Askaqp ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article. But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better? IgelRM ( talk) 18:09, 17 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! 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different merge targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 23:12, 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 keep‎. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua N. Haldeman

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

Article has issues with neutrality (seems angled toward showing that the person is less anti-Semitic than sources suggest), is fluffed with unnecessary information, and it seems this person is not sufficiently notable, with the main thing being Elon Musk's grandfather. Calling neurocalometers "a then-controversial expensive device" also seems skewed. Foxsake92 ( talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as creator. Welcome to Wikipedia! It's very unusual for a user's first edits to be an AFD, but that's totally okay!! Do you have suggestions for how we could improve the neutrality? In response to your concerns, neurocalometer sentence has been reworded with attribution rather than wikivoice. As far as Notability goes, Haldeman was famous in his own time for his roles in chiropractic and politics, not because of his descendants -- Notablity is not inherited and the article text never actually mentions Haldeman's grandson, whose life didn't really overlap much with Haldeman's. Feoffer ( talk) 02:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And the other language versions also cite in-depth coverage from CBC News and Business Insider [5]. There are also: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Foxsake92, do you think this meets the criteria at either at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline ( WP:GNG) or Wikipedia:Notability (people) ( WP:BIO)? "issues with neutrality" can be handled at the article and its talk page. Rjjiii ( talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The first was written by the subject himself and the second by his son; they're not independent. –  Joe ( talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources indicated above. Four SIGCOV sources were provided by User:Rjjiii. Even if two are not independent, there are still multiple sources to support notability (and additional sources to support data). Hence Haldeman, already, meets the GNG bar. There are, however, more valid sources than the two that are needed. Plus absolutely no BLP concern, as Haldeman died more than 50 years ago. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb ( talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb

List of people who have lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb (  | talk | history | 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 phonebook. This has been {{ cn}} tagged for 2 years, and there is no indication that "living in Hampstead Garden Suburb" is a notable concept (as opposed to a thing that some people happen to do). Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:05, 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. There is a consensus here that this list falls under what Wikipedia is not due to its broad scope, and no prejudice against creating shorter, more appropriate lists with narrower selection criteria. Complex/ Rational 22:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Android games

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

Ryan York has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There are half a million Android games. This page is clearly not feasible in this format and is misleading, with so many missing games. It is impossible to list every Android game here. Why some android games are listed, but nòt the other ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan York ( talk • contribs) and transcluded to the log at 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This meets WP: NLIST. Here are seven sources from reputable journalists that demonstrate the subject's notability: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. They discuss subjects ranging from optimizing gaming performance on Android phones to the Google Play Pass to Android games that can be played offline. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 01:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading. Additionally,
Category:Android (operating system) games list already exist and provides a structured way to list such games, which is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these. Specialized databases and resources like the Google Play Store offer extensive, up-to-date lists, making this Wikipedia page redundant and difficult to maintain. Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is. Ryan York ( talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No, none of that's true. This doesn't make sense.

Listing hundreds of thousands of Android games in this format is simply not possible, and therefore it is misleading.

How is it misleading? There is a statement at the top of this list that states: This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources. That makes it very clear that this list doesn't need to be hundreds of thousands of games long. WP: NLIST, which I'm hoping you've read by now, also says that "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles". That would also make the article much easier to manage.

Category:Android (operating system) games list [sic] already exist [sic] and ... is how listings should be done for comprehensive lists like these.

That's not a valid reason for deletion: "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Please read WP: NOTDUP.

Additionally, many of the games listed here lack a source, which alone demonstrates how flawed this list is.

Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup. This is the wrong venue for these concerns, no matter how many times you insist that this list is "flawed". You need to write this on the Talk page of the article, per WP: ATD-E. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't need to keep saying this. It isn't accurate. Having an implausible scope is not, in fact, a cleanup issue. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Evidently I do, because this is a cleanup issue. I don't think the scope is implausible, and even if it is, this just means that the list should be split into sublists that are manageable (e.g. by genre or name). HyperAccelerated ( talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not a good sign when you keep saying the same thing over and over again and deletion stances continue rolling in concurrently. I'd recommend some introspection on what's really going on here, and caution you not to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Administrators look for arguments based on Wikipedia policies when closing discussions, like WP: NLIST. I don't think the current arguments for deletion will hold much weight. At best, most of the reasons here are really just reasons to split the list. I see this going one of two ways: either the list's size can be managed by limiting it to notable games, at which point the article should be kept, or it's too big, at which point we should just split the list by genre or name. Split lists like Lists of murders (edit: and policies like WP: SALAT) show that splitting massive, difficult-to-complete lists is possible, contrary to what has been asserted in this discussion. Also, there is a difference between civil disagreement and bludgeoning -- accusing good-faith editors of violating WP: BLUDGEON isn't funny. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I see it going one way - deletion - because a scope of half a million titles (and rapidly increasing every day) isn't manageable. Perhaps with more editing experience you'll understand what people are trying to tell you. Perhaps you have to "live it" to understand. And bludgeoning can happen even in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, thanks. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Did you also read any of the seven sources that I listed to show that this meets WP: NLIST? HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The manageability of the list, the proposal to limit entries to notable games or create sublists is not a sufficient solution. Even with these measures, the list remains unwieldy and prone to becoming outdated quickly. The effort required to continuously vet and update the list for notability and accuracy is disproportionate to the benefits it provides.
The argument that deletion discussions are not the venue for cleanup concerns overlooks the fundamental issue of the list’s feasibility. Cleanup is indeed necessary, but the extent of the problems with this list—scope, manageability, and sourcing—indicates that deletion is a more appropriate response. The energy and resources required for ongoing maintenance are better directed towards creating high-quality.
Redundancy with existing categories, unmanageable nature, lack of reliable sourcing, and the disproportionate effort required for maintenance. Deletion will streamline Wikipedia’s content and ensure resources are used more effectively to maintain the quality and reliability of the information provided. The scope is simply too broad. There is a reason why there is no "List of Windows games" or "List of Android apps" on this website. Let me give you another example: I personally log into Wikipedia every day to update lists of Microsoft games and triple-A and double-A console games. Even that can be quite impossible. Ryan York ( talk) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
None of this has anything to do with WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You either don't want to understand, or you are trolling. Listing 100,000–500,000 games on this format is not possible. If you want to create multiple Wikipedia articles listing Android games by their year or maybe genre, you are welcome to do so. As of now, this list does not even include 1% of Android games, and it is misleading. It is so broad and not up to date that it is simply impossible to list even 1% of the games here. I recommend you check out the List of Europeans discussion. Ryan York ( talk) 03:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cut the attitude and answer my question. This is not an invitation to grandstand about your edits on articles that have nothing to do with this AfD, to show that you know how many Android games exist, or to call someone a troll just because they disagree with you. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I know there are hundreds of thousands of Android games out there. It's impossible to list them all here, so we'll have to delete this article. Thanks and goodbye Ryan York ( talk) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree that this list should be deleted. Attempting to compile a comprehensive list of millions of Android games on Wikipedia is impractical and misleading. Maintaining such a list on Wikipedia would be burdensome and redundant, given the constantly expanding nature of mobile gaming. Deleting this page would uphold Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and relevance, focusing on curated content rather than exhaustive lists. Wariorio10 ( talk) 04:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not a valid reason for deleting an article. Please read WP: NLIST and WP: NOTDUP. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reviewed it already. This list should be deleted due to its massive scope. It's not feasible to list half a million games in this format with sources. The largest list in Wikipedia's history, ' List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements,' pales in comparison to the claims made by this list. Wariorio10 ( talk) 17:39, 28 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 no consensus‎ and no indication one will form to delete this article. A discussion on a merger to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or rename to List of future ships of the United States Navy can continue on the talk as neither requires admin action. Star Mississippi 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Future of the United States Navy

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

Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion. While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list. However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead. Reywas92 Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Walsh90210, renaming is an editing decision that is outside the possible options for an AFD closure. If that is the outcome you seek, you need to argue for a Keep and then a discussion on a page title can happen. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abzû. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Giant Squid (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 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 programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!#Current programming. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Chimpoo Simpoo

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It lacks in-depth analysis or substantial coverage from reputable publications. The references are primarily primary sources or basic descriptions, which do not provide the necessary independent verification to establish the show's notability. M S Hassan ( talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 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 14:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jerry Slavonia

Jerry Slavonia (  | talk | history | 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 is promotional. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 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! 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Chhillar

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

Contested draftify. User:Procyon117 moved over to draft due to poor sourcing but this was reverted by the creator. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG or WP:BIO are met here. The references presented represent the best that can be found on him, as far as I can see. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-amp-stakeholders20240610181025/ No No Contains the text The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same No Coverage is mostly about his company ✘ No
https://www.news18.com/business/real-estate-sustainable-living-smart-tech-defining-todays-bespoke-luxury-homes-8940012.html Yes Yes No One brief quote ✘ No
https://insightconvey.com/landmark-welcomes-a-paradigm-shift-in-workspace-luxury-with-the-unveiling-of-the-landmark-sales-office/ No No No evidence that this is WP:RS No Just one long quote from him ✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders-124061000792_1.html No Sponsored article No As above No Coverage is mostly about his company ✘ No
https://www.landmarkgoc.com/ No He owns this company No No ✘ No
https://www.newsvoir.com/news/news/advertising-branding/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders.html No No This is clearly a press release No ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete: Totally agree with the source assessment table. I also searched for in-depth coverage from reliable sources but could not find any. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per nom. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage and achievements to satisfy notability about the subject. Page also reads as promotion. RangersRus ( talk) 13:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Which one is unreliable sources? Please be specific. Also, I am trying to publish my first article, please help me here. Thanks. Johnbt21 ( talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all unreliable. Business Standard has Advertorial disclaimer, "The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same." Source like insightconvoy are views shared by the subject himself. Others are all company sites. News18 have nothing of great significant coverage and noteworthy achievements. RangersRus ( talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    So you're saying that neither this person nor the company exists? Visit Landmark Cyber Park, Sector-67, Gurgaon, and see for yourself. Meanwhile, all the information mentioned here is true and from reliable sources. Your arguments are baseless. Johnbt21 ( talk) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    You did not understand what I was saying. Please take time to review WP:GNG and WP:BIO that will be helpful for creating a page with reliable sources. RangersRus ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Great Immigrants Award

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

A non-notable award (to 35 people in 2203), with no obvious selection criteria or monetary reward. Coverage is press releases and PR. Could be a redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Possibly a vanity award, a spam magnet at least. Edwardx ( talk) 20:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Edwardx,
Please find my reply below. Of course, any further questions I would most certainly answer. This is my first encounter with the Deletion process and I want to make sure it is done properly.
thanks,
Ronald Sexton
I wish to argue in the strongest terms for the Great Immigrant Award remain as an entry in Wikipedia. The award is not a vanity prize, no one can purchase this award and no marketing services are involved.
Adding this to the selection section makes for more clarification:
The award is made by Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic foundation established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding. In keeping with this mandate, the Corporation's work focuses on the issues that Andrew Carnegie considered of paramount importance: international peace, the advancement of education and knowledge, and the strength of our democracy. The Great Immigrants award is a part of its democracy program and recognizes naturalized Americans who have made significant contributions that strengthen our democracy and enrich our society. The award is not available for purchase or as a PR/marketing offering. The award aims to bring awareness to the positive contributions of naturalized Americans at large.
The award was begun by the Corporation’s previous President Vartan Gregorian. An immigrant himself, who wish to bring attention the importance of immigrants in all aspects of American life. I am the primary contributor and based this entry on the Vilcek Prize entry. Ronald Sexton ( talk) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
In regards to for spam magnet, I was in the process of changing the link in the list of awardees to their individual Wikipedia page instead of going to the Corporation's website. Ronald Sexton ( talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The awards have received coverage in secondary RS to establish notability, including the AP, UPI, Jewish Journal, and analysis in scholarly tomes [10]. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The deletion criteria states that spam is a reason for deletion only in the context of articles "without any relevant or encyclopedic content." That is not the case here, as there is reliable sources coverage, and it is an award of one of the most notable philanthropic organizations in the world. Therefore, the concern about being a "spam magnet" is not a proper deletion reason, otherwise millions of articles would be put up for deletion, as we are constantly under duress from spam. Also, if the point in the initial nomination was that it was only given "to 35 people in 2023" (typo fixed) that's not a good argument. The quantity of awardees per year has never been a valid argument for notability (see the Nobel or Pulitzer Prizes where they typically award fewer than 35 entities per year) as the whole point of an award is that it has standards for selectivity. The article could be made more NPOV, but deletion is not justified. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:55, 30 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! 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Manichandra

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Was a contestant on 4 games shows and won 1. And is a choreographer. Sources (and article content) are just facts related to that. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. Creator is indeffed for abuse of multiple accounts. North8000 ( talk) 19:26, 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 redirected‎ per last AFD closed yesterday. There was some edit warring going on with that redirect, and it is now fully protected. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tiger (2007 film)

AfDs for this article:
Tiger (2007 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate references to satisfy WP:NFILM, either may be deleted or redirected with relevant articles. Pinakpani ( talk) 18:41, 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 keep‎. Please add sources found into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

God Sent Me

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

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.

      I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."

    2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Gibraltar Socialist Labour Youth

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

A branch of a Gibraltar political party fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in any WP:SIRS. (A couple of churnalistic sources are available, but as WP:INTERVIEW-based journalism they would be considered primary sources.) Moreover, WP:BRANCH would apply since it's a sub-organization of the GSLP. Sources in the article don't even reference the subject. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party as was previous done prior to reversion by the creator. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:46, 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. Although consensus is to redirect to Channa quinquefasciata, there is no article for that. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Channa torsaensis

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

Only source was a predatory journal doi: 10.18782/2320-7051.7131 Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep two potential sources in taxonbar, as well as Dey, Nur, Raychowdhury, Sarkar, Singh & Barat, 2018 mentioned in the taxobox. Seems like enough RS without even going to the library.
    awkwafaba ( 📥) 02:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's the predatory journal + a database that cites the predatory journal. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect At first blush, the fact that a species has been described in a predatory journal should not be a problem. With taxonomic descriptions, the proof is in the pudding; if the major databases take them on and perpetuate them without comment, then things are usually fine for our purposes (these guys do check, more solidly than we can). However, in this case the assignment is actually considered doubtful. This article suggests synonymy to Channa quinquefasciata (We review recent descriptions of species of the genus Channa and conclude [...] that C. torsaensis is not sufficiently diagnosed from C. quinquefasciata), and Eschmeyer's Catalogue goes with that reading (Current status: Synonym of Channa quinquefasciata Praveenraj, Uma, Knight, Moulitharan, Balasubramanian, Bineesh & Bleher 2018.) This suggests that the article should be redirected to Channa quinquefasciata, which would have to be established as a stub. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I added the word "disputed" to the lede. If the name Channa torsaensis has not been explicitly rejected, perhaps it should be kept until then, and the reference from a predatory journal reinstated. Anyone interested in creating a stub for another species in this genus may want to start with the information in the corresponding page in Wikidata, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q117204868 for Channa quinquefasciata and in WikiSpecies. Also, Ralf Britz, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21341156 the researcher who disputes the name, might be worth creating an article about. See also species:Ralf_Britz Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Elmidae. It looks like the name was initially accepted into FishBase and transferred from there to WoRMS, but currently, searching on Channa in FishBase and clicking on the entry for C. torsaensis gets the message "Species name is not in the public version of FishBase." Eschmeyer's Catalog also synonymizes it with C. quinquefasciata. Since C. torsaensis is not accepted as a distinct species by these taxonomic authorities, I think redirection is appropriate. Choess ( talk) 03:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Elmidae (or delete if nobody gets around to writing an article for C. quinquefasciata by the time this AfD closes). It is interesting that ITIS has a record for it. ITIS has been partially down for a couple days (search function works, but taxon records can't be viewed), so I don't know what it actually says. ITIS generally gets their fish taxonomy from Eschmeyer's Catalog, and doesn't get updated particularly frequently, but I'd guess the ITIS record would indicate that this species was initially accepted by Eschmeyer. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 17:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race

Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following up on Talk:Australian Grand Prix#Merge proposal, there is support for deletion on the grounds of notability, with no suitable merge target as an alternative to deletion. The results are unreferenced; the single reference is not independent of the topic. Klbrain ( talk) 16:12, 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 delete‎. Complex/ Rational 17:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Woody Outlaw

Woody Outlaw (  | talk | history | 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 concerns. [11] is about him ... and contradicts the one fact in the article. I didn't find any other substantial coverage. Walsh90210 ( talk) 16:10, 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. Complex/ Rational 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Paul Schwinghammer

Paul Schwinghammer (  | talk | history | 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. No substantial coverage of fishing; no ability to tell if any of the other "Paul Schwinghammer" search results are about the same person; no credible claim that any of his fishing tournament results are important. Walsh90210 ( talk) 16:06, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knives Out (film series)

AfDs for this article:
Knives Out (film 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)

Redrafitify as too soon per MOS:FILMSERIES which recommends three films, currently only two have been released for this series with a third planned, it'll be more necessary if the third is released but that's crystal ball. Indagate ( talk) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: While I agree with Indagate's rationale that this is still too soon and technically against the film series MOS, I see no harm in keeping it up now that it is here. That in mind, @ DisneyMetalhead, it is typically best practice to have a talk page discussion at one of the main related articles (ie at Talk:Knives Out) BEFORE submitting these types of drafts for an AfC, as AfC is not always aware of the film MOS guidelines, case in point, what we have here. This article is definitely in need of major ref additions and cleanup throughout, which probably should have been squared away before a move, though those can always be rectified. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Expansion and/or additional refs/details can be added at any point in time. I did not think it would be controversial at all to create a film article about the collective details of the film series as a whole. DisneyMetalhead ( talk) 04:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Third film is already in production and has it's own article. Upcoming films incredibly rarely get canned once they've began shooting. If the third film itself can already have an article I see no guideline reason why the film series can not. ★Trekker ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Deleting the article for a film series with two movies out and a third actively filming seems a bit hasty. Many series follow this pattern. The third movie even has its own page! Filming has already begun, which makes cancellation very unlikely in the industry. Waqar 💬 17:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Signature Yashmagh

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

Small Emirati clothing brand with one retail location - coverage is low quality churnalism/promotional. No evidence of GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:41, 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Birel

Birel (  | talk | history | 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 only references corporate sources. It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons. Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable. JM 12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • [13] "È Lissone la Maranello dei go-kart campioni del mondo", 30 April 1986 p. 32 ( Milan edition)
  • [14] "In kart alla conquista dell'America", 12 May 1990 p. 45
  • [15] "È florida in Italia l'industria dei kart", 24 September 1977, p. 17
  • Coverage of a 2014 merger on Gazzetta dello Sport: [16]
  • An in-depth review of one of their karts on tkart.it, specialized magazine: [17]

Broc ( talk) 08:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I agree based on these sources this seems notable, I don't have WP:LIBRARY access so much appreciated. If no other arguments are put forward this seems to pass WP:GNG JM 12624 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:09, 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. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Beachhead Solutions

Beachhead Solutions (  | talk | history | 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 the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon ( talk) 00:28, 30 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! 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shafkat Saeed

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:07, 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. But if someone wants to actively improve it, happy to provide as a draft Star Mississippi 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

ఐ 20

ఐ 20 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. 2 of the 3 sources appear to be copies of each other (I couldn't access the third), and no reliable sources were found online. Does not meet WP:NFILM. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Could the article title instead be the English translation? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the title using another script doesn't help searching; regardless, I can't find mentions of this. The sources are listed as marginal reliability per Cite Highlighter, and I don't see any others we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:31, 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 Torchwood (audio drama series)#Background. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Torchwood Archive

The Torchwood Archive (  | talk | history | 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 enough reliable independent coverage - all I've been able to find is self-published blogs posting reviews. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 13:22, 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. Per author's request. – robertsky ( talk) 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Toby Britton

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

Reason Cricketer from Jersey therefore non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrug02 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 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. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Josh Garvin

Josh Garvin (  | talk | history | 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:toosoon Notability; has not yet been elected to a post conferring notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:24, 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 Leon Thomas III. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Rascals (producers)

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

Could not find substantial coverage of the duo or recognition of their work, so no apparent notability by our standards. This should probably be redirected to Leon Thomas III since his article mentions the group multiple times and includes all the same credits. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 10:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 12:06, 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 14:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.

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

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi ( talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:58, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

TwoTiime

TwoTiime (  | talk | history | 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:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 11:58, 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. Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Lovekesh Kataria

Lovekesh Kataria (  | talk | history | 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 existing sources in the article are mostly routine coverage from and related to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi TV series) season 3 show which makes it a case of BLP1E. Being a contestant on a Bigg Boss show does not inherently make the subject notable. A WP:BEFORE shows that the sources go back to 2023, but they are all related to the same show. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Easy Delete due to lack of notability or claim of such —  Iadmc ♫ talk  11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Jeraxmoira delete! 2403:6200:8851:9199:458:B9EF:9898:F8E9 ( talk) 13:13, 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. Star Mississippi 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Hairbrain Scheme

The Hairbrain Scheme (  | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC, article is built heavily on puffery, and is unsourced. Free Realist 9 ( talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it is the same band, but they appear to have been the second support act on another band's tour [37], so it doesn't really make them notable. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree. Would also point out that the Daily Nexus (referenced above) is a student newspaper so doesn't count toward notability. Cielquiparle ( talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There's some info here, but it's hard to tell how well-known this band really was. The sources look mostly local, and they only put out a couple albums on small labels. Maybe with more evidence of broader impact, the article could stay, but right now it seems a bit thin. Waqar 💬 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sevda Jafarova

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Marek Švec (footballer)

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

The article of this men's footballer has not received enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.

The only secondary source I could find is SME's sub-website My Nitra. It mentions Marek Švec scoring a goal in one paragraph after translation: "The oldest and the youngest players scored a valuable draw. Anton Sloboda was everywhere, and we could see the 34-year-old fighter passing between the stoppers in the back, serving teammates in the middle and setting up a goal for the teenager Marek Švec in the front. The academy graduate scored his third goal, no one under the age of 18 in the top 30 European leagues has scored more in a season... Wow! The youngest debutant in the history of FC ViOn will celebrate adulthood only on New Year's Eve and has already made 22 league starts with five goals." The coverage of Švec is written in bold, but something tells me that the rest are more of a trivial mention.

If this article gets deleted, we should consider moving "Marek Švec (wrestler)" to just "Marek Švec".

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 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 Jersey women Twenty20 International cricketers#Florrie Copley. with thanks to Beanie for adding her there to make this viable Star Mississippi 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Florrie Copley

Florrie Copley (  | talk | history | 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 cricketer, who fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Article is just full of WP:REFBOMBS, with none of them contributing towards significant coverage about the player. That's what you can find at a simple search- [40] RoboCric Let's chat 10:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Curb Safe Charmer: Firstly, the mentioned player hasn't yet played in a global T20 WC qualifier. Secondly, WP:OFFCRIC just states that players participating in these matches may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. According to WP:NCRIC, as she has not played for a Test-playing nation, this criterion also fails. And the only other way is GNG, which is also not satisfied. RoboCric Let's chat 10:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, so 2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Europe Qualifier isn't a global T20 WC qualifier? My mistake. I will leave this one to the experts! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 10:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The qualifier mentioned is the European stage of the qualifying process for the global World Cup. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Curb Safe Charmer Forgot to tag in my reply. Still new to this! Apologies. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Curb Safe Charmer 2024 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier- This is what global qualifier means. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RoboCric so you're conceding she has played in a global qualifier now? Shrug02 ( talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Shrug02 No, she has played in 2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Europe Qualifier not the global qualifier. You first need to understand how a World Cup qualification works. Anyway, Global qualifier is not an issue here. He still fails WP:GNG and point1# WP:NCRIC. RoboCric Let's chat 14:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RoboCric He? The subject is a woman. Glad to know you read it carefully Shrug02 ( talk) 14:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Shrug02 Are you raising doubts that I've not reviewed it properly. An English error on He/She cannot prove that I did not do a WP:BEFORE. In the previous sentence, I did use "She". And you know mistakes happen. RoboCric Let's chat 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I really don't care any more. As I stated below I've db-author requested all my Jersey cricket articles be deleted. Have a good day and enjoy being a reviewer. Shrug02 ( talk) 14:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
All deleted now, except the couple that are subject to AFD, so you can be safe in the knowledge that yet more trivial stuff to do with small countries has been expunged @ RoboCric Shrug02 ( talk) 14:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Florrie Copley is notable as she is one of only 2 players to play in the inaugural women's inter-insular cup and Jersey's first women's T20 international (a match in which she top scored). She has played in a world cup qualifying tournament taking wickets in both matches she played in. This is all backed up by citations from the BBC and Jersey Evening Post among others. There is limited scoop for sources for Jersey and even more so for women's sport in Jersey. It is not like the USA or India where there are hundreds of media organisations. Florrie Copley is a notable figure for cricket and women's sport in general in Jersey and the wider Channel Islands. Shrug02 ( talk) 11:14, 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 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ramil Hashimli

Ramil Hashimli (  | talk | history | 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wakefield Trinity players. Star Mississippi 12:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jon Molloy

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements ( 1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update ( 1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates ( List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 11 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! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There seem to be a few articles with more than trivial mention. Given the time period, I also suspect there may be additional sources out there that are not reflected by internet sources. At least weak support for keeping. – notwally ( talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Baffled at the assertions of SIGCOV here. The source linked above is 229 words, of which all but ~5 sentences are direct quotes. The remainder include a couple sentences summarizing what he says in a quote (not independent analysis) and/or relating "what he feels" (ditto), e.g. But after a lengthy time rehabilitating, Molloy is now over the worst of it. and The young forward is hoping to push on and make a big impression with the Giants. With last season almost being forgotten about, Molloy now can set out some targets to work towards – and again it may also involve going out on loan., both of which are immediately followed by more detailed quotes from him. Essentially the only secondary independent coverage is a single sentence mentioning he missed a season due to injury. Nowhere near IRS SIGCOV. This is also a British player from the 2010s, well into the internet news era in a country with highly accessible digital media, so I am very skeptical of claims that coverage exists offline somewhere. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players: Thorough source analysis by JoelleJay removes the basis for standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Strong sources to support the importance of that person. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Normanhunter2, which material do you believe is non-routine SIGCOV in IRS sources? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    My stance on the potential deletion of this article is that it should be retained, primarily due to the credibility of the 9 sources supporting it. These sources, I believe, are robust enough to establish the article's notability.
    Some users here may have stronger opinions based on the WP:SIGCOV of this article, but I see potential for improvement. A 'weak keep' is possible for me because this is a notable topic, and there are likely more substantial sources waiting to be added to enhance the article. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players. Lack of SIGCOV per JoelleJay’s source analysis. This is the better of the two proposed redirect targets as the subject played most of his career with this club. Frank Anchor 18:22, 28 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 Tarangnan#Barangays. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Dapdap

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

Similar issue as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cansolabao, Samar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source here ( [41]) mainly speaks of a landmark in the barangay, and does not thoroughly discuss the barangay itself. Possible failure to comply WP:GEOLAND. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ambivu 3D Workstation

Ambivu 3D Workstation (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli ( talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: I agree that this fails WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:05, 28 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! 07:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of battles in Kinmen

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Penghu, I don't see the reason why this would be its own article, as opposed to the conflicts being covered in the Kinmen article (where they are already covered). toweli ( talk) 07:59, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nolan McGuire

Nolan McGuire (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be a redirect, but I'm not sure what would be the best target. toweli ( talk) 07:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jats in Rajasthan politics

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

Unnecessary glorification of caste. See WP:FANCRUFT. None of the cited sources give any importance to the caste. There is also blatant violation of BLPs across this article because as per WP:CASTEID it is necessary for the subject to state their caste in their own words. Ratnahastin ( talk) 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Lead of this article promotes this caste and fails to meet encyclopedic standards and other information violates BLP policy per WP:CASTEID. Based on the current content of the article, it appears that the intention behind creating this article was solely to glorify a particular caste. This is not the first time TheSlumPanda has done this; they have previously promoted caste here. Looking at their editing history, it seems they have mainly focused on caste-related articles. I am worried they might not be familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:GSCASTE. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've notified them of WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA. Ratnahastin ( talk) 16:26, 28 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 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Gaurav Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul ( talk) 11:57, 20 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! 06:36, 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 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sergey Skabelkin

Sergey Skabelkin (  | talk | history | 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 person is not notable; sources are about companies or projects. Many facts are just there with completely zero sources 鲁纳娄于 ( talk) 09:53, 20 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! 06:35, 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! 05:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

HLSW

HLSW (  | talk | history | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli ( talk) 06:21, 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. since it appears in this case that the redirect is not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 03:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Enhanced network selection

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt ( talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:27, 20 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! 05:23, 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 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Adam Kendrick

Adam Kendrick (  | talk | history | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg ( talk) 04:10, 20 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! 05:20, 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 merge‎ to Jean-Marie Le Pen. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Blue, White and Red Rally

Blue, White and Red Rally (  | talk | history | 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 fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 20 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! 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it. Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party. I would suggest merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion. Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted‎ by Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as " G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sebastian River Area Chamber of Commerce

Sebastian River Area Chamber of Commerce (  | talk | history | 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 no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 03:08, 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 already deleted‎ by @ Bbb23: as a G5. Closing as moot. Star Mississippi 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Eagle Eye Home Care

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to advertorials. KH-1 ( talk) 01:46, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. ( talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tbennert ( talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Why is only this tournament nominated? That makes no sense with other regional qualifying tournaments being notable. And men's tournaments also being notable. Yes, it can do with more independent sources but qualifying tournaments are part of the international cycle for global tournaments. The Banner  talk 16:09, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ SL93 ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mitchell Waite

Mitchell Waite (  | talk | history | 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 no significant coverage, there is none in the article, and it reads like an advertisement. A PROD was contested in 2013. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  : Very PROMO. I can only find places to buy his books, no reviews... Nothing about this individual either, no mentions in RS. delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk) 03:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yes, the article needs a rewrite and citations. However, it turns out this guy was a big deal in 1970s and '80s computing. A search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a few reviews of his work in a places such as SciTech Book News and BioScience, along with this article in the New York Times covering some his work ( link) and this article from another newspaper where Waite discusses his memories of Steve Jobs. However, where I was truly overwhelmed with citations supporting this person's notability was in a search in the Internet Archive. Turns out his work was heavily covered in computer magazines and journals of the 1970s and '80s, with that search returning over a thousand results. Yes, some the results are ads for his books but there are also what appear to be hundreds of reviews or mentions of his books in Compute!, Byte Magazine, Creative Computing, and many other publications. For examples of these reviews, see the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Please note there are many more reviews, so I'm not attempting to link to all of them. As another example of his notability, the June 1986 issue of Amstrad Computer User states that "The de facto references in this sphere are the works of one Mitchell Waite who, with a crew of collaborators made writing CP/M hooks a one-man industry in the CP/M heyday around 1980." ( "Mitchell+Waite" link). Based on all these reviews of his work, I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You have definitely shown notability. I wish I could withdraw this, but I can't with three prior deletes. SL93 ( talk) 23:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It appears one of the editors changed their mind. Perhaps if we contact the other two editors and ask them to weigh in? I'm also willing to work on improving the article with the citations and other info I've found if the article is kept. SouthernNights ( talk) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've now cleaned up the article and added new info and citations. Also, Waite's life and work is heavily featured in a large section of the book Code Nation: Personal Computing and the Learn to Program Movement in America. I've added info from this to the article. That book makes a strong case that Waite was instrumental through his books in encouraging the "rapid development of the Mac platform in the 1980s." SouthernNights ( talk) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The new sources added from the 1990s help improve the article, we have enough to show notability now. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:42, 30 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.

Closing as Soft Deletion as one participant is just "leaning towards Delete". I can also see this content being merged elsewhere should it be suitable for an article on public executions in the U.S. . Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hurt Hardy

Hurt Hardy (  | talk | history | 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 notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.
Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.
However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)
I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.
The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."
I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary ( talk) 12:44, 29 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_27&oldid=1232844520"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE