Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 02 June 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Brian Brake. The nominator is a sockpuppet but there seems to be a clear consensus here to Merge this article into the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Monsoon (photographs)

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

Generally fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG, there are no footnotes in the article and not enough information for direct sourcing. I tried to find more sources for this article but I couldn't. GoodHue291 ( talk) 23:55, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (  | talk | history | 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 bluelinked entries on which to base a comparison (the two bluelinks are just redirects, one to this article itself). Hence this falls into the same bucket at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination), etc.

I did read the two previous nominations closed as keep, but I don't find the keep argument there convincing at all, and I think it's time we reevaluate this after over a decade. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 3 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 11:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jason Ojalvo

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

So, paid creation (not undisclosed for this one, oddly enough, clearly they were blocked for a different creation), WP:RESUME and all that. Obviously, we also want to ask, is Ojalvo notable? From what I can tell, all the coverage seems to be "Ojavo, executive, says", "Ojavo, CEO, says". "Ojavo gets hired as CEO", that kind of thing. Honestly, the paid editor did a pretty good job of looking for sources here, I think the two Guardian articles are about as good as it gets, and I don't think I see any major omissions from the article. I did find a random podcast interview but that's not suitable for obvious reasons.

Now, Grammy would of course normally be an ANYBIO here, obviously, easy review, but the article... credits it to the Audible Studios program? (I don't think the program can win a Grammy? So it must have been awarded to Ojavo?) I don't usually speculate on these things, but being co-awarded a Grammy because they were an Amazon executive? Uh... I kinda doubt that was what people had in mind when they drafted that part of the guideline. I mean I guess it's technically possible to verify they shared it with Janis Ian, but... is there any plausible argument there's any coverage for this? I think it's a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy that we do eventually want actual sources describing this actual thing that happened (the first two AfDs I've found on similar cases B.A.M. and Eric Sullivan seems to support this).

Overall, I would support some sort of redirect, but they're not actually mentioned at 55th Annual Grammy Awards § Spoken Word, and well... I'm probably going to create a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushy (company) within the week as well (watch this space!). I suppose it would be a fine target for now, and maybe Audiobook Creation Exchange if it gets deleted? I don't think we need to pick a perfect target here though. I know this is extremely verbose, but there was a lot to get through. I might exceed the cumulative 500-word mark if responding to any concerns, I hope everyone is alright with that. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Tushy is notable, Jason Ojalvo is probably not enough for now. For a redirect option just go to Tushy ig Freedun ( yippity yap) 06:32, 4 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. If an editor wants to create a Redirect with this page title, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeremy The Remix

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

Reverted redirect; the edit summary said the article can be improved by his fans, but I couldn't find any sources to improve the article with. It might be improvable with offline sources, but that's not something I have access to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973): Unless sufficient print material from Japan can be located, this article does not show sufficient notability of its subject as is. A chart placement is good, but if it only peaked that low then in probably wasn't on the chart for very long (I couldn't tell you because I can't access the book; preview is unavailable on Google Books), and it's hard to call that notable charting. And if that's all the article has going for it, I don't see it passing. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 03:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Try My Love (Jeremy Jordan album). I'll include the information about it in the Try My Love album article, sinceThe Remix includes 3 songs of the mentioned album in remixes versions. Like I did in the Wikipedia in Portuguese article link to Try My Love - Wikipedia in Portuguese.-- Markus WikiEditor ( talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Delete and Redirect with two target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. can be improved by his fans is an excuse for shoddy work fit for Fandom. Does this one-hit wonder still have fans considering he does not appear to be active since 2011? WP:BEFORE shows very little out there besides Discogs. WP:SIGCOV is too thin for this remix album. This should serve a warning to editors that Wikipedia is not Fandom, not an excuse for entries of obscure albums. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 16:35, 5 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. Sources identified by ARandomName123 establish notability. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)

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

Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 ( talk) 23:05, 3 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The first season of this newly established World Championship is due to begin in just under two weeks. Coverage has been limited to motorsports-focused outlets such as Speedweek ( example here), Eurosport ( example here), and others ( Road Racing World, Paddock-GP.com). Deletion is entirely unwarranted, given that this is a World Championship sanctioned by the same governing body that oversees events such as MotoGP, WorldSBK, and others. Mathias327 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Well, to be clear, notability isn't inherited from parent topics ( WP:NOTINHERITED) nor is it conferred by equivalent topics ( WP:OTHERSTUFF). There does seem to be some coverage at the moment, maybe not enough for an article, but there will almost certainly be enough coverage in two weeks' time. Is it worth it to delete or draftify this article and then recreate it in, say, a month? I don't think so. Arguably it doesn't pass notability standards right now, but we ought to be pragmatic here. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting nomination. But disappointing, per 5225C and Mathias327. This is what happens when inexperienced, over-zealous editors 'pirate' what others have written; sometimes it's almost like a competition - who can get it on to WP first. I often see this with racing deaths, contrary to wp notmemorial, when there is nothing/insufficient previously written about the racer, being an also-ran. See Paul Dobbs, Victor Steeman, Billy Redmayne, Dean Berta Viñales.
    I'm sure you're all aware that I wrote it, purposely as a section ( in February 2024) as nothing had then (yet) happened. I'm equally sure you've read what I wrote here, being toosoon, permastub, crystal - "There is simply no need for a separate article at this premature stage".
    Having established that, I disagree that it should be draftified; such action, whilst admitting that some coverage may be available soon, could be regarded as pointy. However the mechanism, it's there, so yes, pragmatism in that redirect (back to) section may be just a retrograde/administrative move (I am an inclusionist).
    Keep. Considering what's happening with women's participation in certain sports, and the positive discrimination to enable them, then I think the article is a 'net-positive' to the project, although, considering the nationalities of the participants, will likely be of more-interest to European, non-English first speakers. Considering positive discrimination, I can cite WIR (with which I disagree, being a determined effort to skew the natural balance).-- 82.13.47.210 ( talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Already more than enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. -- John B123 ( talk) 11:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be enough independent coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines to me. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:31, 11 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bet-David

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fouzia Bhatti

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

I am unable to find sig,/in-depth coverage on the subject in RS. The BLP appears to be PROMO and contains WP:OR. The fact that 85% of the content was added by two SPAs John maxel & Mehermehemehr suggesting a potential COI. Courtesy thanks to @ Crosji: for flagging this BLP. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 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. Editors can choose to create a redirect if they wish. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Electronic Reference Library

Electronic Reference Library (  | talk | history | 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. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's only one redirect !vote, there is a clear consensus to eliminate the article but not quite enough discussion for a sure delete over redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Grogg

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:45, 3 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. Though there have been no comments since the relisting, I'm seeing a clear consensus here. The only argument to keep provided some sources, but these are convincingly rebutted as referring to subsets of this list, and therefore contributing to notability for the broader topic but not the spinoff list. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of formerly unidentified decedents

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

Fork of Unidentified decedent. Only page content, aside from list entries, is copied from Unidentified decedent. Would be better implemented as a category rather than WP:LISTCRUFT. jellyfish  ✉ 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, from previous nominations - it still fails WP:NLIST, per 4meter4's reasoning here. jellyfish  ✉ 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per first AFD rationale. Also WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; compiled through an original synthesis. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. According to NAMUS's own statistics, law enforcement in the United States successfully identified 7,188 unidentified bodies in 2023 alone. That's just one nation. Being a formerly unidentified body is not unusual or encyclopedic. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete per above. I too can see having a category but as group they have little to do with one another. Mangoe ( talk) 23:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
On further reflection, I think this just needs to go. The majority of these seem to be found murder victims, and after all unless someone is there at the time who survives to tell the tale, the general rule is that it takes time to identify a found body. How much time is enough to justify inclusion? Well, it's pretty arbitrary, so I'd say the membership criterion is vague. Mangoe ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I strongly oppose any such list at the Unidentified decedents article. The very reasons for deletion are the same reasons why an in-article list are inappropriate. You could try a category but I suspect that too would end up at WP:CFD as a non-encyclopedic cross categorization. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, you're right - category deleted at CfD. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Granted so much news stories of decade-old decedents being identified drowns them out, but I did find three sources that discuss them as a group as WP:NLIST requires in one of its scenarios ( [1] [2] [3]) (or subsets at least: 1 is about unidentified indigenous people being identified with DNA; 2 is about forensic genealogy being used to identify murder victim bodies; and 3 is about unidentified 9/11 victims being identified). Overall, this passes WP:NLIST and is compliant with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR.
While I can't dispute NAMUS' statement of thousands being identified in the US annually, it doesn't account for how many of them are notable (in fact, there are only 42 American ones on the list, which composes all of history) or even had been unidentified for so long, and if anything, it (and to a lesser extent the vast amount of news sources) possibly makes them a culturally significant phenomenon, so the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR#3. Further, the list entries do not violate WP:SYNTH because each entry only requires one source to confirm that they were once unidentified but are now so. Also, WP:NLIST only discusses being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as one of many reasons for counting, with consensus for cross-categorizations likes these being inconclusive, though my previous arguments lean towards keeping.
However, considering many of these were notable for being unidentified, we should at the least consider restricting the list to only those with articles and who went unidentified for some time (i.e. five years or a decade), and a merge might be considered given the list is a little bit small, but these are discussions for another time. ミラP@ Miraclepine 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Miraclepine None of those sources are specifically about formerly unidentified decedents, or are necessarily reliable. All three are on related but different topics. The third source is targeted solely at 9/11 victims, which is a different much narrower topic. The second source is on forensic genealogy. It is also an opinion piece which means it can't be used as a source on wikipedia because it is unreliable. The first source is about DNA testing in the process of body identification, and while it mentions formerly identified people in passing, it does not address the subject directly and in detail, or discuss formerly unidentified people generally as a group. Additionally, the sources are entirely America-centric and do not look at the broader topic from a global perspective (and this is a global topic). None of them provide a list of formerly unidentified decedents, and none of them talk about formerly unidentified decedents from a big picture long term view. It's all a narrow viewpoint secondary to the main topic of each individual article, none of which primarily focus on formerly unidentified decedents. I'm still not seeing how this passes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. How is this not a "repository of loosely associated topics". The only thing unifying these people is that they were at one time an unidentified body; which as statistics have demonstrated, is not unusual. Do they really belong in a list together? Is this even encyclopedic? I also want to point out that we already deleted several lists of this kind because they were rife with WP:Original research with numerous entries added from law enforcement and the NAMUs websites (without any secondary sources) and self published crime enthusiast blogs; many of them with speculations and factual errors. It's been a nightmare cleaning up after the type editing these lists attract. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed with the analysis here. Reading over most of the articles in the list, I don't believe being unidentified is necessarily the thing that makes a lot of them notable - most often it's the murder or whatever led to their disappearance. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4: Granted, they’re on related but technically different subsets, but because of the subject matter, they still generally talked about human remains being formerly unidentified, enough to go beyond trivial coverage, so I feel it still applies in principle; also WP:SIGCOV says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, not all op-eds are unreliable; WP:NEWSORG provides for rare scenarios for which op-eds are reliable, and the in this case op-ed written by a subject-matter expert, criminologist Nancy La Vigne, so I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt relative to a WP:EXPERTSPS. Further, I feel discounting the sourcing as being American-centric might amount to WP:ATA#Geographic scope.
With regards to NOTDIR, calling it a "repository of loosely associated topics" appears to be a stretch because they are in common an unidentified body, which while technically not uncommon, pales in comparison to, say, 3,279,857 deaths in the United States in 2023 (1 for every 745); hence it should be as encyclopedic as the list already at unidentified decedent. Also, OR/V issues are generally nothing restricting the list to only those with enwiki articles (45 out of thousands, if not millions), thus fulfilling recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes, can't solve. ミラP@ Miraclepine 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a complete misread of WP:NLIST. NLIST specifically says we need to restrict lists to those where the targeted topic of the list " grouping or set in general has been discussed". If you can't find sources that talk about the concept of the list directly in a general way, that is exactly the kind of thing that indicates WP:NLIST is not met. Piecemeal, partial, and tangential coverage does not meet the NLIST guideline which requires broad overview sourcing on a given topic. Further, the lack of non-US coverage in the sourcing and in-article content in the text of the sources is very concerning for having a list with a global framework. For a global topic there needs to be sourcing written from a global paradigm; otherwise there will inevitably be an article rife with Wikipedia:Systemic bias due to issues of Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance. I don't think its possible with the current sourcing to create a global article that isn't inherently a WP:POV/ WP:UNDUE violation due to being entirely created from only American-centric sources. But that doesn't matter anyway, because of the lack of direct coverage, which demonstrates a failure of WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NLIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearian a full list would probably be in the millions or tens of millions. NAMUS has tracked close to 100,000 identifications of unidentified bodies since it was founded in 2003, and that is just bodies in the United States. If we were to include the entire globe, and go through law enforcement/hospital/government records globally over the last two hundred years the number would be many times that size. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, as far a category would go, I doubt it'd end up being anything more than a collection of redirects. Most of these people are notable solely for their death or murder. I can't link right now, but I did post it above - category was deleted for similar reasoning a few years ago. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 19:01, 6 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! 20:56, 3 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. The discussion did not generate a consensus as to whether, as a fork, the article is redundant or justified. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of the United States National Park System official units

List of the United States National Park System official units (  | talk | history | 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 already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Reywas92 Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki ( talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92 Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki ( talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92 Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe ( talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer ( talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.176.175 ( talk • contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system. This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list. But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list. — Maile ( talk) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse. 108.48.176.251 ( talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. - Navarre0107 ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝 🗨 20:23, 4 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Leonid Cherneha

Leonid Cherneha (  | talk | history | 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 says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I was usually prone to keep, however I would not be surprised if it's going to be redirected to list of mayors of Odesa because he is listed as a mayor of Odesa there. After all, he was listed in the Russian wikipedia where he was the mayor of Odesa. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 3 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! 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Srđan Škulić

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

Fails WP:NBIO; created by a fairly new editor who doesn't understand much English (they made test edits at KDCD-TV). Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 3 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. Favonian ( talk) 20:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nano-ayurvedic medicine

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

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM: No different than, and not independent from, Ayurvedic medicine. Slapping 'nano' in front of it doesn't make it any less quantum woo. What's next, relativistic water memory? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 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.

I cannot find any reliable resources

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vicky Theodoropoulou

Vicky Theodoropoulou (  | talk | history | 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've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:17, 3 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! 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sizo Maseko

Sizo Maseko (  | talk | history | 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 BLP that fails WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:09, 3 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! 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tiaan Marx

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Narciso García-Loygorri, 2nd Duke of Vistahermosa

Narciso García-Loygorri, 2nd Duke of Vistahermosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited to no coverage in reliable sources, which would fail WP:NBIO. Only found a passing mention here and some potentially useful material here. I could not find anything else, however, which is unfortunate as this would still fail WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:49, 3 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 Characters of the Dead or Alive series with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Though merges are numerically more common, the substance of the comments here are about a lack of encyclopedic source material. As such there is consensus for a merger, but only a highly selective one. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I'm not sure if I'm voting on this, but this strikes me as one of those articles where had much of it had not been written by Niemti, but rather someone else, it likely wouldn't be listed here in AFD. I can't access the whole thing, but apparently, this talks about Kasumi and Ayane (the latter of which I was actually working on a draft for). And the sources from IGN, Hardcore Gaming 101, Kotaku and Joystick Division are pretty good. Should the article get merged, maybe those sources can be used if someone tries and recreates it. MoonJet ( talk) 06:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your input! JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adolphe Ferrière

Adolphe Ferrière (  | talk | history | 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 subject is the topic of coverage by related parties (primary sources, including IBE, the University of Geneva, and the International School of Geneva (Ecolint). However, in-depth coverage by multiple unrelated parties appears not to exist; just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES that are primary. One primary source even laments that nobody has paid attention to this subject's publications. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. JFHJr ( ㊟) 19:32, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sophia McIntyre

Sophia McIntyre (  | talk | history | 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. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 17:59, 3 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. I'm not seeing a policy-based reason to keep this article. There are reasonable arguments to keep pages about broadcasting rights for single years, such as 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights; however, those arguments do not cover a list of broadcasters in every country in every year. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS if these are not unsourced or dead links, a big portion of these are WP:PRIMARY and announcments; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:16, 3 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 Tooth & Nail Records. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Brandon Ebel

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls ( talk) 17:06, 3 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 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa

JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa (  | talk | history | 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 under-construction hotel does not meet threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. All sources are WP:TRADES publications and thus do not contribute to notability. Any attribution of "five-star" status or "80 spacious guest rooms" or "luxurious amenities" is both promotional and premature. I'd recommend redirecting here but since this hotel won't be open for at least three years the redirect won't be of much use to searchers. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Philippines. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PROMO, this isn't yet notable. SportingFlyer T· C 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the references in the article establish notability. The nominator misunderstands the definition of trade publication. A trade publication serves readers in a particular industry. A magazine or newspaper directed towards a general business audience ( Canadian Business, The Wall Street Journal, Crain's Chicago Business) does not have the potential conflict of interest that a single-industry publication such as The Inland Printer might have. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not completely exclude trade magazines as sources. "Feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear." Of the references, Hospitality News Philippines is a trade publication serving the hotel and restaurant sector. Colliers is the research arm of a commercial real estate broker. The rest of the references seem to be general-audience publications, some with a focus on business, and several include a reporter's byline. The seemingly promotional text can probably be justified from the architectural plans and JW Marriott's reputation as a brand. Hotel stars, unlike Michelin stars, are generally self-awarded, so the developer's claim shouldn't be rejected as premature. A hotel's rating can decline over the years as it loses ground to newer and fancier competitors, or can improve after a significant renovation. Remember that the Hotel Pensylvania in Manhattan stopped being a full-service hotel in its final years, and many of the other hotels and former hotels in Wikipedia started out as the finest hotels in their city but were perceived as less attractive once other competitors arrived in the market. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Even if one rejects the TRADES premise, under WP:NBUILDING there is a requirement for "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The sources cited in the article are churnalism regurgitating AppleOne's press release, with no evidence of in-depth additional reporting. Such "significant in-depth coverage" would be highly unlikely for a single under-construction hotel that does not appear to have any architectural distinction. Under NBUILDING and PROMO, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for all of the above, but mostly for the promo. There’s nothing “seemingly” promotional about it. It is promotional, and premature. KJP1 ( talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
p.s. Food and beverage outlets - in a hotel. Who knew! KJP1 ( talk) 17:51, 5 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 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

RuralShores

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

Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country. – Tera tix ₵ 14:54, 3 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. There have been no new comments here after two relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussions about a future Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Doms in Jordan

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

This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 3 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 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gold Coast Stars F.C.

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

No evidence this club meets the GNG. 'Keep' arguments at the last AfD in 2012 included that it "looks notable" and "think the team is notable", but I was unable to uncover WP:RS on a Google search. According to another unsourced Wikipedia page, the team dissolved in 2012 after a single season. C 679 13:47, 3 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 Muse (band). Owen× ☎ 19:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Helium 3 (record label)

Helium 3 (record label) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Baugh (politician)

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona ( talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly closed this AFD without realizing that I participated in it. I'm relisting this for discussion after restoring the page, as it feels like the appropriate thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The discussion of whether to merge can be considered outside of this discussion for deletion, but it does not appear that there are strong arguments being made to delete the article. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations (  | talk | history | 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 Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij ( talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:41, 3 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 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Martin Vlček

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

Slovak footballer with 0 minutes (i.e. one substitution in extra time) in the highest Slovak league. Previously kept for meeting a guideline that doesn't exist anymore. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions. Career is no longer ongoing either. There are some unrelated people by the same name. Geschichte ( talk) 11:22, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Viktor Vondryska

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

Slovak footballer with 21 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions and primary sources. Geschichte ( talk) 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete—Has something of a track record with professional teams while still a young player. Too old for WP:TOOSOON, I admit, but I've seen some precedent lately, especially for English players, to suggest that this level of professional experience, even at the second-tier level is sufficient to vote keep. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per sources provided below by JTtheOG. I was on the fence to begin with, but these two sources, one in German and the other in Slovakian, provide more than passing references to this player and seem to be from reliable, independent outlets. Although ultimately a transfer announcement, the first source provides somewhat meaningful coverage of Vondryska's style of play and past experience. The second source is much more substantive and singularly focuses on the player, his experience playing with the Slovakian youth national team, and provides much more than a simple interview. I recognize that this isn't a very strong record, particularly concerning the first source, but it is significant coverage of the player as a player, which is enough to fulfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Anwegmann ( talk) 23:48, 5 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 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Marek Výbošťok

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

Slovak footballer with 33 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions, match reports and primary sources, including his own agency. Geschichte ( talk) 11:19, 3 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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ustani Jee

AfDs for this article:
Ustani Jee (  | talk | history | 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 to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is coverage with trivial mentions or some ROTM coverage like this and this..The page was previously nominated for deletion but was saved because socks associated with Pakistanpedia voted to keep it. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 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 Habonim Dror. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Camp Tel Chai

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg ( talk) 08:47, 3 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 Jewish summer camp. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Camp JCA Shalom

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg ( talk) 08:42, 3 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 04:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May)

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [20] [21] [22] Soni ( talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dumo Lulu-Briggs

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:38, 3 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. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shy (company)

Shy (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)

It appears to be a non-notable fashion company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. All cited sources are either dead, spam websites. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume ( talk) 07:36, 3 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 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kenry Balobo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 07:02, 3 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) Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Egungun of Lagos

Egungun of Lagos (  | talk | history | 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 don’t have reliable sourced references, the articles looks like an autobiography and subject is not notable to be included on Wikipedia as a BLP article. I think it should be deleted Madeforall1 ( talk) 19:30, 2 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. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Blessing Ejiofor

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo ( talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete [see comment of June 3] unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [ [23]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [ [24]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [ [25]]. Let'srun ( talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is also [ [26]]. Let'srun ( talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi ( talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun ( talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius ( talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. based on presented citations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hkkingg ( talk) 08:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Haven't had a chance to look at the other sources, but the first one you posted is from Vanderbilt (the school she played for at the time the article was written), and as such isn't independent. Let'srun ( talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    +1 to what Let’srun said. Also, I saw these sources you just mentioned before I made this nomination and they just can’t be used to establish GNG, subject already said WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Still removing the primary source, we have 4 other sources. I stand by my Keep vote. Again you don't need to protect your nomination and argue every voter that opposes your nomination. this is not a good practice. Let the admins decide. Hkkingg ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Hkkingg This is not a matter of protecting my nomination (that sounds weird) or whatever, this is a deletion discussion, and this is a matter of letting you know what the policies and guidelines involved really is. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Only one of those sources is independent. The first is from Vanderbilt, the second from WVU recruitment affiliate WV Sports Now (written by WVU students/employees), the third from the Vanderbilt student newspaper, and the fourth from the WVU student newspaper. The remaining French source is routine transactional news. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per my above arguments. I don't see the sustained SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is unusual in that there are several editors here who have put in time to locate sources but they haven't given their opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept, Deleted or maybe moved to Draft space if it looks like they have a promising professional career ahead of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: This subject was covered extensively in this SI cover story from 2020 [ [27]], and while somewhat local this story from the Patterson Times is dedicated to her [ [28]]. Ejiofor was also featured on 60 Minutes in 2020. As such, we have multiple independent, reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The SI story is a single event, so we would need sources showing sustained SIGCOV to meet N. The (highly local) Paterson Times source fails YOUNGATH and does not count towards GNG, and the fact she was interviewed on 60 Minutes is also irrelevant as it is not secondary independent coverage. If the only good material we have on her is from a flurry of minor pieces regarding one event in 2020, and nothing else substantial since then, we really don't have an NPOV basis for an article. JoelleJay ( talk) 11:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have no issue with the quality, significance, or relevance of the sources. My question is, what is the subject notable for? Her personal life doesn't establish notability, and being a member of college basketball teams or minor professional basketball teams doesn't establish notability. Being interviewed by sports magazines or similar sources doesn't make her notable. What is it that elevates her above the level of a good but not particularly outstanding young athlete? Has she done something unusual or important that would still be worth mentioning twenty, forty, sixty years down the road? Right now the only specifics about her basketball career, besides a list of teams that she's played for, are that she scored 28 points for the Vanderbilt Commodores over the course of twenty-two games in one season: an average of 1.27 points per game played. In any given year, there are literally thousands of college basketball players with comparable records. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the references above which establish notability. The SI cover story is one and the other pieces of independent and routine local coverage provided above can count toward the second as expected by GNG. WP:NBIO clearly states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    But what is she notable for? She's not notable for having been mentioned or even interviewed by multiple publications. These sources would help if they said anything about her that would be notable; do they? As a basketball player, she's got to be notable for doing something important in basketball, and other than a list of teams she's been on, all that we know about her basketball career is that she scored 28 points one year. That's not notable! Virtually every starting player on every college basketball team in the country scores more than that over the course of a season, and they're not all notable. What sets her apart from thousands of non-notable players? It can't all come down to the number of publications that have mentioned her. P Aculeius ( talk) 05:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Lean keep: according to Nigeria women's national basketball team, Blessing Ejiofor is a member of the team that won the 2023 Women's Afrobasket tournament, an international tournament held every two years, and Nigeria has won the last four tournaments. The team also qualified for this summer's Olympic Games at the 2024 FIBA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments. Now, I don't have enough expertise with the subject to be sure I can identify and cite which sources are appropriate for these, but if Ejiofor is a member of a championship team and (probably) the 2024 Nigerian Olympic basketball team, that might seem to be enough to establish notability. That and what's already in the article would seem to be an even better bet. But someone with more expertise with these tournaments should add this to the article. P Aculeius ( talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is not about adding a biography without a reliable source. If she was a member of a championship team. Does that means all members should have a stand alone article without providing sources nor meeting WP:GNG. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source to why a person should have a stand alone article which you are already diverting to. So pointing those blue link because you found her there still doesn't make her notable. She falls under the category of Too soon. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If you read my comment, nowhere did I say that Wikipedia was a source for her notability. I pointed at those articles because if the statements made or implied are correct, then she is probably at least minimally notable, and some of the sources cited in those articles could and should be added here. I deferred doing so to someone with more familiarity with the type of source being listed, as those sources are beyond my realm of expertise. I've said all along that the sources aren't what make someone notable or non-notable: it's the information those sources can be used to verify.
    Whether being a member of a championship basketball team or a national Olympic basketball team is sufficient to demonstrate notability, alone or in combination with what's already in the article is a matter of opinion. But I suspect it is, if the sources can be cited by someone with more experience in this field. Since this wasn't previously discussed and isn't currently in the article, I think it potentially changes things. It provides a concrete basis for claiming notability that was lacking before, even though this material needs to be substantiated. However, deleting the article before this has been done would be premature. P Aculeius ( talk) 07:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would have the article but can't find significant coverage on google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:26, 4 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 all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pharaoh496 ( talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also pinging @ JoelleJay @ Trainsandotherthings @ Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 ( talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 ( talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA ( talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ AA @ James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝 🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 ( talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 ( talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties"  [29]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [30]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [31]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [32]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 ( talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 ( talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92 Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner ( talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't object. Svartner ( talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like " W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner ( talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 ( talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
    As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:

    Grace turned 23 in July 1871

    Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).

    1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.

    This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
    Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".

    Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.

    Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.

    He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.

    The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron (
talk) 
17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
  • Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite ( talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
    • No merge because no one will spend a day - @ Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.
    • It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.
    • Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:49, 8 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 06:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

MaryEllen Miller

MaryEllen Miller (  | talk | history | 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. All the sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 05:03, 3 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! 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One Night in Yoshiwara

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

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg ( talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 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 United Airlines. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kion de Mexico

Kion de Mexico (  | talk | history | 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 seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles ( talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing ++ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect. User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Malaal-e-Yaar

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 3 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sione Fonua

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora ( talk) 11:46, 1 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, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 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. Good points made by all participants, but no consensus whether to keep or merge. Since outright deletion is off the table, this discussion is better suited for a proposed merger on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Literature of England

Literature of England (  | talk | history | 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 page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt ( talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
    • English literature refers to literature in the English language
    • Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
    I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius ( talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt ( talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius ( talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Catherine Raper

Catherine Raper (  | talk | history | 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. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar ( talk) 04:47, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Walton School of Auctioneering

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

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey ( talk) 04:24, 3 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 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Eric Giganto

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:10, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (  | talk | history | 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 is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

*Keep for the reasons many others have already mentioned. ArchidamusIII ( talk)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shaadi Impossible

Shaadi Impossible (  | talk | history | 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 to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LogFS

LogFS (  | talk | history | 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 software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 ( talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp× g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett ( talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Italy–Montenegro relations

Italy–Montenegro relations (  | talk | history | 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. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. -- Soman ( talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar ( talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar ( talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    "it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar ( talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [52], [53], [54], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ( [55]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ( [56]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ( [57]), etc, etc. -- Soman ( talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar ( talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ LibStar @ Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar ( talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. -- Soman ( talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. -- Soman ( talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:01, 26 May 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, Daniel ( talk) 02:27, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One Spoon of Chocolate

One Spoon of Chocolate (  | talk | history | 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 about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid. KingArti ( talk) KingArti ( talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti ( talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.
The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat ( talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :
  1. https://blavity.com/rza-contemplating-one-spoon-of-chocolate-period-piece-spanning-1960s-through-1970s
  2. https://deadline.com/2024/05/jason-isbell-boards-rza-film-one-spoon-of-chocolate-1235916186/
  3. https://www.hot97.com/news/rza-set-to-direct-one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  4. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/paris-jackson-shameik-moore-to-lead-one-spoon-of-chocolate-drama/article68101471.ece
  5. https://www.hola.com/us/entertainment/20240425359223/paris-jackson-one-spoon-of-chocolate-movie/
  6. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/rza-on-his-new-movies-and-recording-with-paul-banks-101527/
  7. https://blexmedia.com/one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  8. https://www.blackfilmandtv.com/news/rza-to-direct-produce-one-spoon-of-chocolate-shameik-moore-and-paris-jackson
  9. https://ew.com/article/2012/10/29/rza-man-with-the-iron-fists/
  10. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/jason-isbell-boards-rza-action-201425470.html
etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.
A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. - 2pou ( talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.
So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat ( talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You're most welcome. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.— Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.
So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

San Jose Taiko

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

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ecko Miles

Ecko Miles (  | talk | history | 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 do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight. ProWikignome ( talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg ( talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:24, 3 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. ✗ plicit 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Monastyryshche

Battle of Monastyryshche (  | talk | history | 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 poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus ( talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time. Olek Novy ( talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus ( talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KLHU-CD

KLHU-CD (  | talk | history | 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 GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 3 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 00:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Darrell Leon McClanahan

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

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile ( talk) 02:08, 3 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 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Phillip Buffington

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

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann ( talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: this is a more substantial article than that on college basketball player Blessing Ejiofor, which seems to stand a decent chance of surviving AfD despite a lack of similar information about tournaments and awards, based solely on the existence of interviews and mentions in notable sources. So I expected that there would be at least local news coverage (i.e. independent of school newspapers and athletic sites) of Buffington.
He was not mentioned, as far as I can tell, in the Herald-Dispatch, although it's possible that the online search did not reach back as far as 2005 (it's also possible that the paper's coverage of Marshall soccer was not very extensive back them; it's much more extensive now that Marshall's program has achieved national prominence). I tried to search the Clarion-Ledger for mentions during Buffington's Mississippi College years, but was unable to get the site to finish loading on my ancient computer. A Google News search mainly turned up articles in "Mississippi Scoreboard" about the girls' soccer team that Buffington coaches. There may still be news coverage that I wasn't able to find, but I have my doubts at the moment. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:37, 3 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_3&oldid=1228483675"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 02 June 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Brian Brake. The nominator is a sockpuppet but there seems to be a clear consensus here to Merge this article into the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Monsoon (photographs)

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

Generally fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG, there are no footnotes in the article and not enough information for direct sourcing. I tried to find more sources for this article but I couldn't. GoodHue291 ( talk) 23:55, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (  | talk | history | 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 bluelinked entries on which to base a comparison (the two bluelinks are just redirects, one to this article itself). Hence this falls into the same bucket at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination), etc.

I did read the two previous nominations closed as keep, but I don't find the keep argument there convincing at all, and I think it's time we reevaluate this after over a decade. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 3 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 11:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jason Ojalvo

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

So, paid creation (not undisclosed for this one, oddly enough, clearly they were blocked for a different creation), WP:RESUME and all that. Obviously, we also want to ask, is Ojalvo notable? From what I can tell, all the coverage seems to be "Ojavo, executive, says", "Ojavo, CEO, says". "Ojavo gets hired as CEO", that kind of thing. Honestly, the paid editor did a pretty good job of looking for sources here, I think the two Guardian articles are about as good as it gets, and I don't think I see any major omissions from the article. I did find a random podcast interview but that's not suitable for obvious reasons.

Now, Grammy would of course normally be an ANYBIO here, obviously, easy review, but the article... credits it to the Audible Studios program? (I don't think the program can win a Grammy? So it must have been awarded to Ojavo?) I don't usually speculate on these things, but being co-awarded a Grammy because they were an Amazon executive? Uh... I kinda doubt that was what people had in mind when they drafted that part of the guideline. I mean I guess it's technically possible to verify they shared it with Janis Ian, but... is there any plausible argument there's any coverage for this? I think it's a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy that we do eventually want actual sources describing this actual thing that happened (the first two AfDs I've found on similar cases B.A.M. and Eric Sullivan seems to support this).

Overall, I would support some sort of redirect, but they're not actually mentioned at 55th Annual Grammy Awards § Spoken Word, and well... I'm probably going to create a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushy (company) within the week as well (watch this space!). I suppose it would be a fine target for now, and maybe Audiobook Creation Exchange if it gets deleted? I don't think we need to pick a perfect target here though. I know this is extremely verbose, but there was a lot to get through. I might exceed the cumulative 500-word mark if responding to any concerns, I hope everyone is alright with that. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Tushy is notable, Jason Ojalvo is probably not enough for now. For a redirect option just go to Tushy ig Freedun ( yippity yap) 06:32, 4 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. If an editor wants to create a Redirect with this page title, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeremy The Remix

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

Reverted redirect; the edit summary said the article can be improved by his fans, but I couldn't find any sources to improve the article with. It might be improvable with offline sources, but that's not something I have access to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973): Unless sufficient print material from Japan can be located, this article does not show sufficient notability of its subject as is. A chart placement is good, but if it only peaked that low then in probably wasn't on the chart for very long (I couldn't tell you because I can't access the book; preview is unavailable on Google Books), and it's hard to call that notable charting. And if that's all the article has going for it, I don't see it passing. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 03:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Try My Love (Jeremy Jordan album). I'll include the information about it in the Try My Love album article, sinceThe Remix includes 3 songs of the mentioned album in remixes versions. Like I did in the Wikipedia in Portuguese article link to Try My Love - Wikipedia in Portuguese.-- Markus WikiEditor ( talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Delete and Redirect with two target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. can be improved by his fans is an excuse for shoddy work fit for Fandom. Does this one-hit wonder still have fans considering he does not appear to be active since 2011? WP:BEFORE shows very little out there besides Discogs. WP:SIGCOV is too thin for this remix album. This should serve a warning to editors that Wikipedia is not Fandom, not an excuse for entries of obscure albums. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 16:35, 5 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. Sources identified by ARandomName123 establish notability. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)

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

Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 ( talk) 23:05, 3 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The first season of this newly established World Championship is due to begin in just under two weeks. Coverage has been limited to motorsports-focused outlets such as Speedweek ( example here), Eurosport ( example here), and others ( Road Racing World, Paddock-GP.com). Deletion is entirely unwarranted, given that this is a World Championship sanctioned by the same governing body that oversees events such as MotoGP, WorldSBK, and others. Mathias327 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Well, to be clear, notability isn't inherited from parent topics ( WP:NOTINHERITED) nor is it conferred by equivalent topics ( WP:OTHERSTUFF). There does seem to be some coverage at the moment, maybe not enough for an article, but there will almost certainly be enough coverage in two weeks' time. Is it worth it to delete or draftify this article and then recreate it in, say, a month? I don't think so. Arguably it doesn't pass notability standards right now, but we ought to be pragmatic here. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting nomination. But disappointing, per 5225C and Mathias327. This is what happens when inexperienced, over-zealous editors 'pirate' what others have written; sometimes it's almost like a competition - who can get it on to WP first. I often see this with racing deaths, contrary to wp notmemorial, when there is nothing/insufficient previously written about the racer, being an also-ran. See Paul Dobbs, Victor Steeman, Billy Redmayne, Dean Berta Viñales.
    I'm sure you're all aware that I wrote it, purposely as a section ( in February 2024) as nothing had then (yet) happened. I'm equally sure you've read what I wrote here, being toosoon, permastub, crystal - "There is simply no need for a separate article at this premature stage".
    Having established that, I disagree that it should be draftified; such action, whilst admitting that some coverage may be available soon, could be regarded as pointy. However the mechanism, it's there, so yes, pragmatism in that redirect (back to) section may be just a retrograde/administrative move (I am an inclusionist).
    Keep. Considering what's happening with women's participation in certain sports, and the positive discrimination to enable them, then I think the article is a 'net-positive' to the project, although, considering the nationalities of the participants, will likely be of more-interest to European, non-English first speakers. Considering positive discrimination, I can cite WIR (with which I disagree, being a determined effort to skew the natural balance).-- 82.13.47.210 ( talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Already more than enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. -- John B123 ( talk) 11:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be enough independent coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines to me. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:31, 11 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bet-David

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fouzia Bhatti

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

I am unable to find sig,/in-depth coverage on the subject in RS. The BLP appears to be PROMO and contains WP:OR. The fact that 85% of the content was added by two SPAs John maxel & Mehermehemehr suggesting a potential COI. Courtesy thanks to @ Crosji: for flagging this BLP. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 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. Editors can choose to create a redirect if they wish. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Electronic Reference Library

Electronic Reference Library (  | talk | history | 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. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's only one redirect !vote, there is a clear consensus to eliminate the article but not quite enough discussion for a sure delete over redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Grogg

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:45, 3 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. Though there have been no comments since the relisting, I'm seeing a clear consensus here. The only argument to keep provided some sources, but these are convincingly rebutted as referring to subsets of this list, and therefore contributing to notability for the broader topic but not the spinoff list. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of formerly unidentified decedents

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

Fork of Unidentified decedent. Only page content, aside from list entries, is copied from Unidentified decedent. Would be better implemented as a category rather than WP:LISTCRUFT. jellyfish  ✉ 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, from previous nominations - it still fails WP:NLIST, per 4meter4's reasoning here. jellyfish  ✉ 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per first AFD rationale. Also WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; compiled through an original synthesis. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. According to NAMUS's own statistics, law enforcement in the United States successfully identified 7,188 unidentified bodies in 2023 alone. That's just one nation. Being a formerly unidentified body is not unusual or encyclopedic. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete per above. I too can see having a category but as group they have little to do with one another. Mangoe ( talk) 23:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
On further reflection, I think this just needs to go. The majority of these seem to be found murder victims, and after all unless someone is there at the time who survives to tell the tale, the general rule is that it takes time to identify a found body. How much time is enough to justify inclusion? Well, it's pretty arbitrary, so I'd say the membership criterion is vague. Mangoe ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I strongly oppose any such list at the Unidentified decedents article. The very reasons for deletion are the same reasons why an in-article list are inappropriate. You could try a category but I suspect that too would end up at WP:CFD as a non-encyclopedic cross categorization. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, you're right - category deleted at CfD. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Granted so much news stories of decade-old decedents being identified drowns them out, but I did find three sources that discuss them as a group as WP:NLIST requires in one of its scenarios ( [1] [2] [3]) (or subsets at least: 1 is about unidentified indigenous people being identified with DNA; 2 is about forensic genealogy being used to identify murder victim bodies; and 3 is about unidentified 9/11 victims being identified). Overall, this passes WP:NLIST and is compliant with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR.
While I can't dispute NAMUS' statement of thousands being identified in the US annually, it doesn't account for how many of them are notable (in fact, there are only 42 American ones on the list, which composes all of history) or even had been unidentified for so long, and if anything, it (and to a lesser extent the vast amount of news sources) possibly makes them a culturally significant phenomenon, so the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR#3. Further, the list entries do not violate WP:SYNTH because each entry only requires one source to confirm that they were once unidentified but are now so. Also, WP:NLIST only discusses being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as one of many reasons for counting, with consensus for cross-categorizations likes these being inconclusive, though my previous arguments lean towards keeping.
However, considering many of these were notable for being unidentified, we should at the least consider restricting the list to only those with articles and who went unidentified for some time (i.e. five years or a decade), and a merge might be considered given the list is a little bit small, but these are discussions for another time. ミラP@ Miraclepine 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Miraclepine None of those sources are specifically about formerly unidentified decedents, or are necessarily reliable. All three are on related but different topics. The third source is targeted solely at 9/11 victims, which is a different much narrower topic. The second source is on forensic genealogy. It is also an opinion piece which means it can't be used as a source on wikipedia because it is unreliable. The first source is about DNA testing in the process of body identification, and while it mentions formerly identified people in passing, it does not address the subject directly and in detail, or discuss formerly unidentified people generally as a group. Additionally, the sources are entirely America-centric and do not look at the broader topic from a global perspective (and this is a global topic). None of them provide a list of formerly unidentified decedents, and none of them talk about formerly unidentified decedents from a big picture long term view. It's all a narrow viewpoint secondary to the main topic of each individual article, none of which primarily focus on formerly unidentified decedents. I'm still not seeing how this passes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. How is this not a "repository of loosely associated topics". The only thing unifying these people is that they were at one time an unidentified body; which as statistics have demonstrated, is not unusual. Do they really belong in a list together? Is this even encyclopedic? I also want to point out that we already deleted several lists of this kind because they were rife with WP:Original research with numerous entries added from law enforcement and the NAMUs websites (without any secondary sources) and self published crime enthusiast blogs; many of them with speculations and factual errors. It's been a nightmare cleaning up after the type editing these lists attract. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed with the analysis here. Reading over most of the articles in the list, I don't believe being unidentified is necessarily the thing that makes a lot of them notable - most often it's the murder or whatever led to their disappearance. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4: Granted, they’re on related but technically different subsets, but because of the subject matter, they still generally talked about human remains being formerly unidentified, enough to go beyond trivial coverage, so I feel it still applies in principle; also WP:SIGCOV says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, not all op-eds are unreliable; WP:NEWSORG provides for rare scenarios for which op-eds are reliable, and the in this case op-ed written by a subject-matter expert, criminologist Nancy La Vigne, so I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt relative to a WP:EXPERTSPS. Further, I feel discounting the sourcing as being American-centric might amount to WP:ATA#Geographic scope.
With regards to NOTDIR, calling it a "repository of loosely associated topics" appears to be a stretch because they are in common an unidentified body, which while technically not uncommon, pales in comparison to, say, 3,279,857 deaths in the United States in 2023 (1 for every 745); hence it should be as encyclopedic as the list already at unidentified decedent. Also, OR/V issues are generally nothing restricting the list to only those with enwiki articles (45 out of thousands, if not millions), thus fulfilling recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes, can't solve. ミラP@ Miraclepine 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a complete misread of WP:NLIST. NLIST specifically says we need to restrict lists to those where the targeted topic of the list " grouping or set in general has been discussed". If you can't find sources that talk about the concept of the list directly in a general way, that is exactly the kind of thing that indicates WP:NLIST is not met. Piecemeal, partial, and tangential coverage does not meet the NLIST guideline which requires broad overview sourcing on a given topic. Further, the lack of non-US coverage in the sourcing and in-article content in the text of the sources is very concerning for having a list with a global framework. For a global topic there needs to be sourcing written from a global paradigm; otherwise there will inevitably be an article rife with Wikipedia:Systemic bias due to issues of Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance. I don't think its possible with the current sourcing to create a global article that isn't inherently a WP:POV/ WP:UNDUE violation due to being entirely created from only American-centric sources. But that doesn't matter anyway, because of the lack of direct coverage, which demonstrates a failure of WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NLIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearian a full list would probably be in the millions or tens of millions. NAMUS has tracked close to 100,000 identifications of unidentified bodies since it was founded in 2003, and that is just bodies in the United States. If we were to include the entire globe, and go through law enforcement/hospital/government records globally over the last two hundred years the number would be many times that size. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, as far a category would go, I doubt it'd end up being anything more than a collection of redirects. Most of these people are notable solely for their death or murder. I can't link right now, but I did post it above - category was deleted for similar reasoning a few years ago. Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk) 19:01, 6 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! 20:56, 3 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. The discussion did not generate a consensus as to whether, as a fork, the article is redundant or justified. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of the United States National Park System official units

List of the United States National Park System official units (  | talk | history | 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 already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Reywas92 Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki ( talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92 Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki ( talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92 Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe ( talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer ( talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.176.175 ( talk • contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system. This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list. But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list. — Maile ( talk) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse. 108.48.176.251 ( talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. - Navarre0107 ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝 🗨 20:23, 4 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Leonid Cherneha

Leonid Cherneha (  | talk | history | 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 says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I was usually prone to keep, however I would not be surprised if it's going to be redirected to list of mayors of Odesa because he is listed as a mayor of Odesa there. After all, he was listed in the Russian wikipedia where he was the mayor of Odesa. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 3 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! 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Srđan Škulić

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

Fails WP:NBIO; created by a fairly new editor who doesn't understand much English (they made test edits at KDCD-TV). Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 3 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. Favonian ( talk) 20:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nano-ayurvedic medicine

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

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM: No different than, and not independent from, Ayurvedic medicine. Slapping 'nano' in front of it doesn't make it any less quantum woo. What's next, relativistic water memory? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 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.

I cannot find any reliable resources

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vicky Theodoropoulou

Vicky Theodoropoulou (  | talk | history | 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've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:17, 3 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! 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sizo Maseko

Sizo Maseko (  | talk | history | 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 BLP that fails WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:09, 3 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! 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tiaan Marx

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Narciso García-Loygorri, 2nd Duke of Vistahermosa

Narciso García-Loygorri, 2nd Duke of Vistahermosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited to no coverage in reliable sources, which would fail WP:NBIO. Only found a passing mention here and some potentially useful material here. I could not find anything else, however, which is unfortunate as this would still fail WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:49, 3 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 Characters of the Dead or Alive series with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Though merges are numerically more common, the substance of the comments here are about a lack of encyclopedic source material. As such there is consensus for a merger, but only a highly selective one. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I'm not sure if I'm voting on this, but this strikes me as one of those articles where had much of it had not been written by Niemti, but rather someone else, it likely wouldn't be listed here in AFD. I can't access the whole thing, but apparently, this talks about Kasumi and Ayane (the latter of which I was actually working on a draft for). And the sources from IGN, Hardcore Gaming 101, Kotaku and Joystick Division are pretty good. Should the article get merged, maybe those sources can be used if someone tries and recreates it. MoonJet ( talk) 06:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your input! JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adolphe Ferrière

Adolphe Ferrière (  | talk | history | 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 subject is the topic of coverage by related parties (primary sources, including IBE, the University of Geneva, and the International School of Geneva (Ecolint). However, in-depth coverage by multiple unrelated parties appears not to exist; just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES that are primary. One primary source even laments that nobody has paid attention to this subject's publications. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. JFHJr ( ㊟) 19:32, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 13:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sophia McIntyre

Sophia McIntyre (  | talk | history | 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. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 17:59, 3 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. I'm not seeing a policy-based reason to keep this article. There are reasonable arguments to keep pages about broadcasting rights for single years, such as 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights; however, those arguments do not cover a list of broadcasters in every country in every year. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS if these are not unsourced or dead links, a big portion of these are WP:PRIMARY and announcments; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:16, 3 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 Tooth & Nail Records. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Brandon Ebel

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls ( talk) 17:06, 3 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 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa

JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa (  | talk | history | 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 under-construction hotel does not meet threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. All sources are WP:TRADES publications and thus do not contribute to notability. Any attribution of "five-star" status or "80 spacious guest rooms" or "luxurious amenities" is both promotional and premature. I'd recommend redirecting here but since this hotel won't be open for at least three years the redirect won't be of much use to searchers. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Philippines. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PROMO, this isn't yet notable. SportingFlyer T· C 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the references in the article establish notability. The nominator misunderstands the definition of trade publication. A trade publication serves readers in a particular industry. A magazine or newspaper directed towards a general business audience ( Canadian Business, The Wall Street Journal, Crain's Chicago Business) does not have the potential conflict of interest that a single-industry publication such as The Inland Printer might have. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not completely exclude trade magazines as sources. "Feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear." Of the references, Hospitality News Philippines is a trade publication serving the hotel and restaurant sector. Colliers is the research arm of a commercial real estate broker. The rest of the references seem to be general-audience publications, some with a focus on business, and several include a reporter's byline. The seemingly promotional text can probably be justified from the architectural plans and JW Marriott's reputation as a brand. Hotel stars, unlike Michelin stars, are generally self-awarded, so the developer's claim shouldn't be rejected as premature. A hotel's rating can decline over the years as it loses ground to newer and fancier competitors, or can improve after a significant renovation. Remember that the Hotel Pensylvania in Manhattan stopped being a full-service hotel in its final years, and many of the other hotels and former hotels in Wikipedia started out as the finest hotels in their city but were perceived as less attractive once other competitors arrived in the market. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Even if one rejects the TRADES premise, under WP:NBUILDING there is a requirement for "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The sources cited in the article are churnalism regurgitating AppleOne's press release, with no evidence of in-depth additional reporting. Such "significant in-depth coverage" would be highly unlikely for a single under-construction hotel that does not appear to have any architectural distinction. Under NBUILDING and PROMO, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for all of the above, but mostly for the promo. There’s nothing “seemingly” promotional about it. It is promotional, and premature. KJP1 ( talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
p.s. Food and beverage outlets - in a hotel. Who knew! KJP1 ( talk) 17:51, 5 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 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

RuralShores

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

Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country. – Tera tix ₵ 14:54, 3 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. There have been no new comments here after two relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussions about a future Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Doms in Jordan

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

This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 3 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 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gold Coast Stars F.C.

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

No evidence this club meets the GNG. 'Keep' arguments at the last AfD in 2012 included that it "looks notable" and "think the team is notable", but I was unable to uncover WP:RS on a Google search. According to another unsourced Wikipedia page, the team dissolved in 2012 after a single season. C 679 13:47, 3 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 Muse (band). Owen× ☎ 19:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Helium 3 (record label)

Helium 3 (record label) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Baugh (politician)

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona ( talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly closed this AFD without realizing that I participated in it. I'm relisting this for discussion after restoring the page, as it feels like the appropriate thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The discussion of whether to merge can be considered outside of this discussion for deletion, but it does not appear that there are strong arguments being made to delete the article. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations (  | talk | history | 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 Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij ( talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:41, 3 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 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Martin Vlček

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

Slovak footballer with 0 minutes (i.e. one substitution in extra time) in the highest Slovak league. Previously kept for meeting a guideline that doesn't exist anymore. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions. Career is no longer ongoing either. There are some unrelated people by the same name. Geschichte ( talk) 11:22, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Viktor Vondryska

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

Slovak footballer with 21 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions and primary sources. Geschichte ( talk) 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete—Has something of a track record with professional teams while still a young player. Too old for WP:TOOSOON, I admit, but I've seen some precedent lately, especially for English players, to suggest that this level of professional experience, even at the second-tier level is sufficient to vote keep. Anwegmann ( talk) 22:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per sources provided below by JTtheOG. I was on the fence to begin with, but these two sources, one in German and the other in Slovakian, provide more than passing references to this player and seem to be from reliable, independent outlets. Although ultimately a transfer announcement, the first source provides somewhat meaningful coverage of Vondryska's style of play and past experience. The second source is much more substantive and singularly focuses on the player, his experience playing with the Slovakian youth national team, and provides much more than a simple interview. I recognize that this isn't a very strong record, particularly concerning the first source, but it is significant coverage of the player as a player, which is enough to fulfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Anwegmann ( talk) 23:48, 5 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 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Marek Výbošťok

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

Slovak footballer with 33 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions, match reports and primary sources, including his own agency. Geschichte ( talk) 11:19, 3 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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ustani Jee

AfDs for this article:
Ustani Jee (  | talk | history | 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 to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is coverage with trivial mentions or some ROTM coverage like this and this..The page was previously nominated for deletion but was saved because socks associated with Pakistanpedia voted to keep it. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 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 Habonim Dror. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Camp Tel Chai

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg ( talk) 08:47, 3 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 Jewish summer camp. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Camp JCA Shalom

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg ( talk) 08:42, 3 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 04:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May)

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [20] [21] [22] Soni ( talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dumo Lulu-Briggs

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:38, 3 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. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shy (company)

Shy (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)

It appears to be a non-notable fashion company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. All cited sources are either dead, spam websites. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume ( talk) 07:36, 3 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 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kenry Balobo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 07:02, 3 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) Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Egungun of Lagos

Egungun of Lagos (  | talk | history | 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 don’t have reliable sourced references, the articles looks like an autobiography and subject is not notable to be included on Wikipedia as a BLP article. I think it should be deleted Madeforall1 ( talk) 19:30, 2 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. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Blessing Ejiofor

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo ( talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete [see comment of June 3] unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [ [23]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [ [24]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [ [25]]. Let'srun ( talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is also [ [26]]. Let'srun ( talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi ( talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun ( talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius ( talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. based on presented citations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hkkingg ( talk) 08:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Haven't had a chance to look at the other sources, but the first one you posted is from Vanderbilt (the school she played for at the time the article was written), and as such isn't independent. Let'srun ( talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    +1 to what Let’srun said. Also, I saw these sources you just mentioned before I made this nomination and they just can’t be used to establish GNG, subject already said WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Still removing the primary source, we have 4 other sources. I stand by my Keep vote. Again you don't need to protect your nomination and argue every voter that opposes your nomination. this is not a good practice. Let the admins decide. Hkkingg ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Hkkingg This is not a matter of protecting my nomination (that sounds weird) or whatever, this is a deletion discussion, and this is a matter of letting you know what the policies and guidelines involved really is. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Only one of those sources is independent. The first is from Vanderbilt, the second from WVU recruitment affiliate WV Sports Now (written by WVU students/employees), the third from the Vanderbilt student newspaper, and the fourth from the WVU student newspaper. The remaining French source is routine transactional news. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per my above arguments. I don't see the sustained SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is unusual in that there are several editors here who have put in time to locate sources but they haven't given their opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept, Deleted or maybe moved to Draft space if it looks like they have a promising professional career ahead of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: This subject was covered extensively in this SI cover story from 2020 [ [27]], and while somewhat local this story from the Patterson Times is dedicated to her [ [28]]. Ejiofor was also featured on 60 Minutes in 2020. As such, we have multiple independent, reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The SI story is a single event, so we would need sources showing sustained SIGCOV to meet N. The (highly local) Paterson Times source fails YOUNGATH and does not count towards GNG, and the fact she was interviewed on 60 Minutes is also irrelevant as it is not secondary independent coverage. If the only good material we have on her is from a flurry of minor pieces regarding one event in 2020, and nothing else substantial since then, we really don't have an NPOV basis for an article. JoelleJay ( talk) 11:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have no issue with the quality, significance, or relevance of the sources. My question is, what is the subject notable for? Her personal life doesn't establish notability, and being a member of college basketball teams or minor professional basketball teams doesn't establish notability. Being interviewed by sports magazines or similar sources doesn't make her notable. What is it that elevates her above the level of a good but not particularly outstanding young athlete? Has she done something unusual or important that would still be worth mentioning twenty, forty, sixty years down the road? Right now the only specifics about her basketball career, besides a list of teams that she's played for, are that she scored 28 points for the Vanderbilt Commodores over the course of twenty-two games in one season: an average of 1.27 points per game played. In any given year, there are literally thousands of college basketball players with comparable records. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the references above which establish notability. The SI cover story is one and the other pieces of independent and routine local coverage provided above can count toward the second as expected by GNG. WP:NBIO clearly states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    But what is she notable for? She's not notable for having been mentioned or even interviewed by multiple publications. These sources would help if they said anything about her that would be notable; do they? As a basketball player, she's got to be notable for doing something important in basketball, and other than a list of teams she's been on, all that we know about her basketball career is that she scored 28 points one year. That's not notable! Virtually every starting player on every college basketball team in the country scores more than that over the course of a season, and they're not all notable. What sets her apart from thousands of non-notable players? It can't all come down to the number of publications that have mentioned her. P Aculeius ( talk) 05:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Lean keep: according to Nigeria women's national basketball team, Blessing Ejiofor is a member of the team that won the 2023 Women's Afrobasket tournament, an international tournament held every two years, and Nigeria has won the last four tournaments. The team also qualified for this summer's Olympic Games at the 2024 FIBA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments. Now, I don't have enough expertise with the subject to be sure I can identify and cite which sources are appropriate for these, but if Ejiofor is a member of a championship team and (probably) the 2024 Nigerian Olympic basketball team, that might seem to be enough to establish notability. That and what's already in the article would seem to be an even better bet. But someone with more expertise with these tournaments should add this to the article. P Aculeius ( talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    It is not about adding a biography without a reliable source. If she was a member of a championship team. Does that means all members should have a stand alone article without providing sources nor meeting WP:GNG. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source to why a person should have a stand alone article which you are already diverting to. So pointing those blue link because you found her there still doesn't make her notable. She falls under the category of Too soon. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If you read my comment, nowhere did I say that Wikipedia was a source for her notability. I pointed at those articles because if the statements made or implied are correct, then she is probably at least minimally notable, and some of the sources cited in those articles could and should be added here. I deferred doing so to someone with more familiarity with the type of source being listed, as those sources are beyond my realm of expertise. I've said all along that the sources aren't what make someone notable or non-notable: it's the information those sources can be used to verify.
    Whether being a member of a championship basketball team or a national Olympic basketball team is sufficient to demonstrate notability, alone or in combination with what's already in the article is a matter of opinion. But I suspect it is, if the sources can be cited by someone with more experience in this field. Since this wasn't previously discussed and isn't currently in the article, I think it potentially changes things. It provides a concrete basis for claiming notability that was lacking before, even though this material needs to be substantiated. However, deleting the article before this has been done would be premature. P Aculeius ( talk) 07:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would have the article but can't find significant coverage on google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:26, 4 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 all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pharaoh496 ( talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also pinging @ JoelleJay @ Trainsandotherthings @ Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 ( talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 ( talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA ( talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ AA @ James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝 🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 ( talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 ( talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties"  [29]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [30]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [31]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [32]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 ( talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 ( talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92 Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner ( talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't object. Svartner ( talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like " W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner ( talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 ( talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
    As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:

    Grace turned 23 in July 1871

    Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).

    1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.

    This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
    Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".

    Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.

    Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.

    He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.

    The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron (
talk) 
17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
  • Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite ( talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
    • No merge because no one will spend a day - @ Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.
    • It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.
    • Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.
    Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:49, 8 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 06:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

MaryEllen Miller

MaryEllen Miller (  | talk | history | 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. All the sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 05:03, 3 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! 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One Night in Yoshiwara

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

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg ( talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 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 United Airlines. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kion de Mexico

Kion de Mexico (  | talk | history | 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 seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles ( talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing ++ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect. User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Malaal-e-Yaar

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 3 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sione Fonua

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina ( talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora ( talk) 11:46, 1 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, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 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. Good points made by all participants, but no consensus whether to keep or merge. Since outright deletion is off the table, this discussion is better suited for a proposed merger on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Literature of England

Literature of England (  | talk | history | 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 page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt ( talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
    • English literature refers to literature in the English language
    • Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
    I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius ( talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt ( talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius ( talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Catherine Raper

Catherine Raper (  | talk | history | 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. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar ( talk) 04:47, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Walton School of Auctioneering

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

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey ( talk) 04:24, 3 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 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Eric Giganto

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:10, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (  | talk | history | 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 is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

*Keep for the reasons many others have already mentioned. ArchidamusIII ( talk)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shaadi Impossible

Shaadi Impossible (  | talk | history | 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 to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

LogFS

LogFS (  | talk | history | 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 software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 ( talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp× g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett ( talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Italy–Montenegro relations

Italy–Montenegro relations (  | talk | history | 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. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. -- Soman ( talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar ( talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar ( talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    "it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar ( talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [52], [53], [54], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ( [55]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ( [56]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ( [57]), etc, etc. -- Soman ( talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar ( talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ LibStar @ Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar ( talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. -- Soman ( talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. -- Soman ( talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:01, 26 May 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, Daniel ( talk) 02:27, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One Spoon of Chocolate

One Spoon of Chocolate (  | talk | history | 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 about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid. KingArti ( talk) KingArti ( talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti ( talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.
The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat ( talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :
  1. https://blavity.com/rza-contemplating-one-spoon-of-chocolate-period-piece-spanning-1960s-through-1970s
  2. https://deadline.com/2024/05/jason-isbell-boards-rza-film-one-spoon-of-chocolate-1235916186/
  3. https://www.hot97.com/news/rza-set-to-direct-one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  4. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/paris-jackson-shameik-moore-to-lead-one-spoon-of-chocolate-drama/article68101471.ece
  5. https://www.hola.com/us/entertainment/20240425359223/paris-jackson-one-spoon-of-chocolate-movie/
  6. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/rza-on-his-new-movies-and-recording-with-paul-banks-101527/
  7. https://blexmedia.com/one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  8. https://www.blackfilmandtv.com/news/rza-to-direct-produce-one-spoon-of-chocolate-shameik-moore-and-paris-jackson
  9. https://ew.com/article/2012/10/29/rza-man-with-the-iron-fists/
  10. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/jason-isbell-boards-rza-action-201425470.html
etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.
A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. - 2pou ( talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.
So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat ( talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You're most welcome. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.— Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.
So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:26, 3 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. Star Mississippi 12:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

San Jose Taiko

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

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ecko Miles

Ecko Miles (  | talk | history | 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 do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight. ProWikignome ( talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg ( talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:24, 3 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. ✗ plicit 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Monastyryshche

Battle of Monastyryshche (  | talk | history | 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 poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus ( talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time. Olek Novy ( talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus ( talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 3 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KLHU-CD

KLHU-CD (  | talk | history | 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 GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 3 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 00:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Darrell Leon McClanahan

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

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile ( talk) 02:08, 3 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 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Phillip Buffington

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

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann ( talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: this is a more substantial article than that on college basketball player Blessing Ejiofor, which seems to stand a decent chance of surviving AfD despite a lack of similar information about tournaments and awards, based solely on the existence of interviews and mentions in notable sources. So I expected that there would be at least local news coverage (i.e. independent of school newspapers and athletic sites) of Buffington.
He was not mentioned, as far as I can tell, in the Herald-Dispatch, although it's possible that the online search did not reach back as far as 2005 (it's also possible that the paper's coverage of Marshall soccer was not very extensive back them; it's much more extensive now that Marshall's program has achieved national prominence). I tried to search the Clarion-Ledger for mentions during Buffington's Mississippi College years, but was unable to get the site to finish loading on my ancient computer. A Google News search mainly turned up articles in "Mississippi Scoreboard" about the girls' soccer team that Buffington coaches. There may still be news coverage that I wasn't able to find, but I have my doubts at the moment. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:37, 3 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_3&oldid=1228483675"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE