From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎ and draftify to Draft:Fahim Rahim per consensus agreement between participants and nominator. CactusWriter (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shah Jahan#Early military campaigns. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu ( talk) 22:13, 16 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! 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Moxiie (  | talk | history | 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:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 ( talk) 23:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - this article is a mess.
Fireandflames2 ( talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

KVHC-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars. OWaunTon ( talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 16 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! 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swati tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Khankhel Swati (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage of this group. This page previously redirected to Swati tribe; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be merged to that page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 16 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! 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nicolò D'Amico (rugby union) (  | talk | history | 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, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news ( 1, 2, 3). JTtheOG ( talk) 20:05, 16 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! 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Routine transactional news does not contribute to GNG, and I'm not seeing anything beyond that. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 ( talk) 08:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Basically you are selecting articles for deletion for no reason in actual, you may don't like these article just say it. Combination of those articles has been disscussed long ago and admins gave the permission to Merge it DeepstoneV ( talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC) DeepstoneV ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul ( talk · contribs). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll just avoid your first three lines because I want productive discussion, only suggest you to go through WP:AADP. For the rest, I guess you're referring to this discussion but no one is there proposed for merging it in a new article named "Maratha invasion of Awadh" It's just the opinion of ImperialAficionado. The result of the discussion was delete not merge. Admins didn't give permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom. So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk)

  • Delete or Merge This was a prelude of Bhopal campaign better known as Battle of Bhopal.

I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी ( talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Parvinder Singh (  | talk | history | 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 appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. -- JP ( Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @ Wjemather for his input. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. CactusWriter (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 ( talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 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! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As per my check, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are short and passing mentions. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:NACTOR as the subject was not a lead or significant character in any notable series, film, or drama. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yakkha people. The article on the Rai people does not currently mention Dewan. If the mention is added, and/or there are other meaning of Dewan people, this redirect can be made into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dewan people (  | talk | history | 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 source provided seems to be the only source about these people that provides any depth and even that is only tangential. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:34, 9 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! 22:53, 16 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! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Farhan Ahmed Malhi (  | talk | history | 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 actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 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! 22:54, 16 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! 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

All this article does is confirm it exists with no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 16 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! 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Meyer Ryshpan (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Very trivial coverage found [7]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [8], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio ( talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio ( talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio ( talk) 17:11, 10 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! 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community. It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST. Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST. The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability. See the essay WP:MEMORIAL. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG, the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio ( talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Yuno 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)

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo ( talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover ( talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord ( talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @ Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White ( talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White ( talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge Yes No WP:RSP: user-generated Yes No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/ Yes Yes Yes Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe Yes Yes Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree Yes Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/ Yes Yes ~ One example with only one mention ~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820 Yes Yes ~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White ( talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun ( yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun ( yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu ( talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.
    Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun ( talkcontribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun ( talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
uh ok? Freedun ( talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun ( talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper Yes Was about the rapper No Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija. No Blog, equally advertorial. No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles Yes An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times. No Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP. No Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related. No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE No Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs. Yes The show is reliable and notable as well. No In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no! No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.
Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun ( yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [13] Freedun ( yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
ye i agree. Freedun ( yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Dead Redemption 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Jack Marston (Red Dead) (  | talk | history | 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 character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. Rhain ( he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2, where the character is mentioned. My arguments are the same as above, but we have a viable AtD here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify, I tried that, but it was reverted, hence this AfD. I'd probably prefer deletion but I'm not opposed to redirection. Rhain ( he/him) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Very new/small start-up business that fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of this small company (of perhaps 12 employees?) is the type of "startup receives seed funding" business reporting that is common for any similar business. What limited coverage does exist relates to the company's previous brand name - to the extent that the only source (connecting the title of the article with the entity discussed in the article) is the org's own LinkedIn page. If we do not have sufficient reliable/independent sources to even establish that a company of this name exists (and is the same company covered in the other few sources), then SIGCOV is not met. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. (Would have PRODed, but the creator of the article moved it to the main article namespace [over DRAFT]. And re-added [at best] quasi-promotional text about the org being "award-winning". Therefore not "uncontroversial".) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Six Points, Clay County, Indiana (  | talk | history | 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 passing reference by Baker to a "community" at this intersection (and the GNIS coords are inaccurate: the location is ESE of the label which they used as the location) is not enough. There's nothing much there, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. Mangoe ( talk) 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ordinarily, I'd close as a Redirect to Studio Yotta but that article has also been brought to AFD for consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -The nomination for deletion is inaccurate. The appropriate category is WP:ENT, not Creative. Subject meets inclusion standards by a comfortable margin. He has appeared in a notable amount of high profile video games and shows and has working relationships with a notable amount of prominent people within his industry. He also co-owns an animation studio which has been involved with many major projects. He has received an award relevant to his industry that is only given to one person per year. He is a longtime member on a well-established and influential youtube channel.
Many of the acting credits are verified through the IMDB citation, which Wikipedia lists as an acceptable source. His roles are also verified through other databases, as well as specific citations on particular roles, which is why there are citations of passing mentions of him with regard to specific roles.
The article should be kept as the subject qualifies under WP:ENT and the overall sourcing is acceptable; if there are issues with individual sources that could be handled in Talk or through the removal or addition of sources instead of a page deletion.

KEP95 ( talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of number-one hits of 1963 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1964 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1965 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1966 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{ PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule. This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so. Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not. Perhaps these pages can be draftified? Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there. My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located. Richard3120 ( talk) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:@ Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this. If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it. Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 16:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Olympics on TNT commentators (  | talk | history | 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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer ( talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun ( talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 ( talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 ( talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun ( talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted: WP:BDP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOSOON, et cetera, etc. El_C 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence of Wp:SUSTAINED coverage currently (also see WP:NOTNEWS) and can be recreated in the future if this turns out to have significant impacts. Clearly fulls under the purview of WP:BDP ("Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime") and thus we should presume in favor of privacy. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Schalk Oelofse (  | talk | history | 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) 17:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

JWM

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

Fails WP: N. I found some mentions in some Linux-related books, but nothing that covers the software in-depth. The review in Linux Magazine is broken, but as it stands I can't find evidence that this meets notability standards, since multiple sources are required to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Marlyn Williams (  | talk | history | 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. All I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Sudan, London (  | talk | history | 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 useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [14]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

This is an alleged former town in North Carolina, which was allegedly the first town in its county. I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Marcelo Moraes Caetano (  | talk | history | 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 is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/ autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Man on the Hill (  | talk | history | 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, contains a concerning amount of copyvioed material and close paraphrasing, created in draftspace and accepted by a sock. mwwv converseedits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ per WP:A7, tagged by nominator. CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that he meets GNG. The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman ( talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am only going off the message they left on my talk page and obviously they have not opined here yet. I moved a copy to my userspace and can take up the task sometime in the future when I feel like digging deeper. Feel free to delete, move to draft, or whatever.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

John Englart (  | talk | history | 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. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • '''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson ( talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Except for offices within the party proper, the person in question does not seem to have been elected to or held any public regional or national offices in Turkey. Fails NPOL, ANYBIO, and GNG as Vanderwaalforces points out. The article may be relevant for Turkish WP, but it is not (yet) relevant for English WP. -- Konanen ( talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer) (  | talk | history | 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 references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

withdrawn Graywalls ( talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media ( AP, New York Times, New York Times, Oregonian, Willamette Week). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico. The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus ( talk) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE, local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling •  talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun ( talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Adrianus Warmenhoven (  | talk | history | 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 ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Incubate and draftify at this point. This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion. I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO, however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG. I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. He was the primary subject of this WP:RS. Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability. He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis. He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace. There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability. Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in. Bgv. ( talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Falls short of the GNG. Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki. gidonb ( talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example /info/en/?search=Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into Methanol fuel, Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The Mad Pooper (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary ( talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The "similar cases" also seem to me to constitute a coatrack of insignificant stories tied to the topic by original research, since at a glance their sources don't seem connect these other poopers to the one of the article. Zanahary ( talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't think this is really a BLP violation (it's all cited and she is not named) but it's not sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.

The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.

There are exactly three references on this page;

This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.

This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.

This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.

Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this not a more general term for this? Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth
Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people. Psychastes ( talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
What a good find! Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"." [16] Fram ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or redirect to Zettelkasten, which appears to be a practically identical concept. It is very difficult to find instances of "atomic notebook" being used in this way, so I am unsure whether a redirect is suitable. On the other hand, "atomic note" seems to be a more common term. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Seems like a very unlikely search term for this as well, judging from Google. It looks like the article is just a way to get traffic to or attention for a company, [17]. Fram ( talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Judging from what I just reverted elsewhere, this is a novel concept created by the article creator1 [18]. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no reason at all to redirect this, it hasn't received any outside attention and isn't discussed at the target (and shouldn't be included there for the same reason). Fram ( talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that a redirect isn't appropriate. It needs to be deleted. Note the lack of any supporting reliable sources for the article creator's claim that it's a widely used term. Biogeographist ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Mordella auropubescens (  | talk | history | 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 beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

According to [19] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (marine, brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I've found the original description. [20] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:22, 16 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! 05:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:47, 16 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! 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (  | talk | history | 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 scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK ( talk) 11:50, 16 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! 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol ( talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

wikipedia editors when it comds to demeaning a kid who accidentally shot himself: 2605:59C8:2653:8B10:EBBB:1D42:4291:808A ( talk) 23:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Michael McLintock (  | talk | history | 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 and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:34, 9 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! 03:34, 16 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, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC
  • Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD ( talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. BusterD ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Gary L. Coleman (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:34, 9 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! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:54, 16 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! 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of long marriages (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed  [talk]  [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. - Louisana ( talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92 Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up. DrewieStewie ( talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:06, 22 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! 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete. I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale. If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list. There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [23] and [24] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [25] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [26] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [27] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [28] is the subject's company's website. [29] is an advertising website. [30] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️) 11:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WKUW-LD (  | talk | history | 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; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 ( talk) 16:28, 8 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! 23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sept Days (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14). "七天•10周年:加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中,又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册,因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报,一周七天,其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."

      The article notes: "2007年,七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场,对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道,七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人;"

      From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"

    2. Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). "加拿大蒙城,一位金融人的华丽变身" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体,创办16年,累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体,也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部,举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动,成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"

      From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."

      The article notes: "2006年,尹灵再次辞职,创办华文报纸《七天》。那年,她40岁。"

      From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."

      The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法,坚持自己采访、自己撰稿,一下子吸引了大批读者。"

      From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."

    3. Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). "加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》" [Canada's "Sept Days" media releases French newspaper "La Connexion"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴,庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说,值此《七天》传媒10周年之际,"

      From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"

    4. Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). "加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [Sino-US Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时,亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."

    5. "New voices, expanding horizons. When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well". The Gazette. 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."

    6. Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). "Fixer upper on the Hill". Politico. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."

    7. Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). "《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发" [The book "A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television.

      The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发,正式与读者见面。"

      From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days ( Chinese: 七天) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption. I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WKUT-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Single-level (  | talk | history | 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:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:PARTIAL says everything it needs to BrigadierG ( talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep in some form - could redirect somewhere useful. JoshuaAuble ( talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Kieran Goss (rugby union) (  | talk | history | 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. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Mid-Life Crustacean (  | talk | history | 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 many problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sampie Mastriet (  | talk | history | 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. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. ( non-admin closure) Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WZDS-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎ and draftify to Draft:Fahim Rahim per consensus agreement between participants and nominator. CactusWriter (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shah Jahan#Early military campaigns. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu ( talk) 22:13, 16 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! 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Moxiie (  | talk | history | 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:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 ( talk) 23:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - this article is a mess.
Fireandflames2 ( talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

KVHC-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars. OWaunTon ( talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 16 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! 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swati tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Khankhel Swati (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage of this group. This page previously redirected to Swati tribe; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be merged to that page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 16 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! 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nicolò D'Amico (rugby union) (  | talk | history | 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, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news ( 1, 2, 3). JTtheOG ( talk) 20:05, 16 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! 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Routine transactional news does not contribute to GNG, and I'm not seeing anything beyond that. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 ( talk) 08:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Basically you are selecting articles for deletion for no reason in actual, you may don't like these article just say it. Combination of those articles has been disscussed long ago and admins gave the permission to Merge it DeepstoneV ( talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC) DeepstoneV ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul ( talk · contribs). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll just avoid your first three lines because I want productive discussion, only suggest you to go through WP:AADP. For the rest, I guess you're referring to this discussion but no one is there proposed for merging it in a new article named "Maratha invasion of Awadh" It's just the opinion of ImperialAficionado. The result of the discussion was delete not merge. Admins didn't give permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom. So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here. Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk)

  • Delete or Merge This was a prelude of Bhopal campaign better known as Battle of Bhopal.

I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी ( talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Parvinder Singh (  | talk | history | 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 appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando ( talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. -- JP ( Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @ Wjemather for his input. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. CactusWriter (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 ( talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 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! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As per my check, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are short and passing mentions. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:NACTOR as the subject was not a lead or significant character in any notable series, film, or drama. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yakkha people. The article on the Rai people does not currently mention Dewan. If the mention is added, and/or there are other meaning of Dewan people, this redirect can be made into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dewan people (  | talk | history | 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 source provided seems to be the only source about these people that provides any depth and even that is only tangential. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:34, 9 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! 22:53, 16 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! 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Farhan Ahmed Malhi (  | talk | history | 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 actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 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! 22:54, 16 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! 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

All this article does is confirm it exists with no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 23:40, 16 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! 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Meyer Ryshpan (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Very trivial coverage found [7]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [8], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio ( talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio ( talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio ( talk) 17:11, 10 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! 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community. It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST. Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST. The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability. See the essay WP:MEMORIAL. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG, the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio ( talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Yuno 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)

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo ( talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo ( talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover ( talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord ( talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @ Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White ( talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White ( talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge Yes No WP:RSP: user-generated Yes No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/ Yes Yes Yes Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe Yes Yes Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree Yes Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/ Yes Yes ~ One example with only one mention ~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820 Yes Yes ~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White ( talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun ( yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun ( yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu ( talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.
    Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun ( talkcontribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun ( talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
uh ok? Freedun ( talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun ( talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper Yes Was about the rapper No Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija. No Blog, equally advertorial. No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles Yes An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times. No Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP. No Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related. No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE No Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs. Yes The show is reliable and notable as well. No In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no! No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.
Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun ( yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [13] Freedun ( yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
ye i agree. Freedun ( yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Dead Redemption 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Jack Marston (Red Dead) (  | talk | history | 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 character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. Rhain ( he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2, where the character is mentioned. My arguments are the same as above, but we have a viable AtD here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify, I tried that, but it was reverted, hence this AfD. I'd probably prefer deletion but I'm not opposed to redirection. Rhain ( he/him) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Very new/small start-up business that fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of this small company (of perhaps 12 employees?) is the type of "startup receives seed funding" business reporting that is common for any similar business. What limited coverage does exist relates to the company's previous brand name - to the extent that the only source (connecting the title of the article with the entity discussed in the article) is the org's own LinkedIn page. If we do not have sufficient reliable/independent sources to even establish that a company of this name exists (and is the same company covered in the other few sources), then SIGCOV is not met. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. (Would have PRODed, but the creator of the article moved it to the main article namespace [over DRAFT]. And re-added [at best] quasi-promotional text about the org being "award-winning". Therefore not "uncontroversial".) Guliolopez ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Six Points, Clay County, Indiana (  | talk | history | 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 passing reference by Baker to a "community" at this intersection (and the GNIS coords are inaccurate: the location is ESE of the label which they used as the location) is not enough. There's nothing much there, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. Mangoe ( talk) 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ordinarily, I'd close as a Redirect to Studio Yotta but that article has also been brought to AFD for consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -The nomination for deletion is inaccurate. The appropriate category is WP:ENT, not Creative. Subject meets inclusion standards by a comfortable margin. He has appeared in a notable amount of high profile video games and shows and has working relationships with a notable amount of prominent people within his industry. He also co-owns an animation studio which has been involved with many major projects. He has received an award relevant to his industry that is only given to one person per year. He is a longtime member on a well-established and influential youtube channel.
Many of the acting credits are verified through the IMDB citation, which Wikipedia lists as an acceptable source. His roles are also verified through other databases, as well as specific citations on particular roles, which is why there are citations of passing mentions of him with regard to specific roles.
The article should be kept as the subject qualifies under WP:ENT and the overall sourcing is acceptable; if there are issues with individual sources that could be handled in Talk or through the removal or addition of sources instead of a page deletion.

KEP95 ( talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of number-one hits of 1963 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1964 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1965 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1966 (Peru) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{ PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule. This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so. Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not. Perhaps these pages can be draftified? Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there. My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located. Richard3120 ( talk) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:@ Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this. If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it. Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 16:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Olympics on TNT commentators (  | talk | history | 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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer ( talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun ( talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 ( talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 ( talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun ( talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted: WP:BDP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOSOON, et cetera, etc. El_C 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence of Wp:SUSTAINED coverage currently (also see WP:NOTNEWS) and can be recreated in the future if this turns out to have significant impacts. Clearly fulls under the purview of WP:BDP ("Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime") and thus we should presume in favor of privacy. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Schalk Oelofse (  | talk | history | 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) 17:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

JWM

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

Fails WP: N. I found some mentions in some Linux-related books, but nothing that covers the software in-depth. The review in Linux Magazine is broken, but as it stands I can't find evidence that this meets notability standards, since multiple sources are required to establish notability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Marlyn Williams (  | talk | history | 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. All I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Sudan, London (  | talk | history | 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 useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [14]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

This is an alleged former town in North Carolina, which was allegedly the first town in its county. I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Marcelo Moraes Caetano (  | talk | history | 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 is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/ autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Man on the Hill (  | talk | history | 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, contains a concerning amount of copyvioed material and close paraphrasing, created in draftspace and accepted by a sock. mwwv converseedits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ per WP:A7, tagged by nominator. CactusWriter (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that he meets GNG. The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman ( talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am only going off the message they left on my talk page and obviously they have not opined here yet. I moved a copy to my userspace and can take up the task sometime in the future when I feel like digging deeper. Feel free to delete, move to draft, or whatever.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

John Englart (  | talk | history | 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. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne ( talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • '''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson ( talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Except for offices within the party proper, the person in question does not seem to have been elected to or held any public regional or national offices in Turkey. Fails NPOL, ANYBIO, and GNG as Vanderwaalforces points out. The article may be relevant for Turkish WP, but it is not (yet) relevant for English WP. -- Konanen ( talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer) (  | talk | history | 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 references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

withdrawn Graywalls ( talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media ( AP, New York Times, New York Times, Oregonian, Willamette Week). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico. The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus ( talk) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE, local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling •  talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun ( talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Adrianus Warmenhoven (  | talk | history | 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 ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro ( talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Incubate and draftify at this point. This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion. I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO, however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG. I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. He was the primary subject of this WP:RS. Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability. He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis. He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace. There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability. Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in. Bgv. ( talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Falls short of the GNG. Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki. gidonb ( talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example /info/en/?search=Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into Methanol fuel, Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The Mad Pooper (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary ( talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The "similar cases" also seem to me to constitute a coatrack of insignificant stories tied to the topic by original research, since at a glance their sources don't seem connect these other poopers to the one of the article. Zanahary ( talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't think this is really a BLP violation (it's all cited and she is not named) but it's not sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.

The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.

There are exactly three references on this page;

This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.

This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.

This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.

Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this not a more general term for this? Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth
Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people. Psychastes ( talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
What a good find! Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"." [16] Fram ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or redirect to Zettelkasten, which appears to be a practically identical concept. It is very difficult to find instances of "atomic notebook" being used in this way, so I am unsure whether a redirect is suitable. On the other hand, "atomic note" seems to be a more common term. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Seems like a very unlikely search term for this as well, judging from Google. It looks like the article is just a way to get traffic to or attention for a company, [17]. Fram ( talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Judging from what I just reverted elsewhere, this is a novel concept created by the article creator1 [18]. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no reason at all to redirect this, it hasn't received any outside attention and isn't discussed at the target (and shouldn't be included there for the same reason). Fram ( talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that a redirect isn't appropriate. It needs to be deleted. Note the lack of any supporting reliable sources for the article creator's claim that it's a widely used term. Biogeographist ( talk) 13:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Mordella auropubescens (  | talk | history | 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 beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

According to [19] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (marine, brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I've found the original description. [20] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:22, 16 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! 05:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:47, 16 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! 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (  | talk | history | 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 scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK ( talk) 11:50, 16 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! 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol ( talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

wikipedia editors when it comds to demeaning a kid who accidentally shot himself: 2605:59C8:2653:8B10:EBBB:1D42:4291:808A ( talk) 23:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Michael McLintock (  | talk | history | 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 and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 ( talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo ( talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:34, 9 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! 03:34, 16 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, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger ( talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC
  • Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD ( talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. BusterD ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Gary L. Coleman (  | talk | history | 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 and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:34, 9 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! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:54, 16 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! 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of long marriages (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed  [talk]  [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. - Louisana ( talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92 Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up. DrewieStewie ( talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:06, 22 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! 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete. I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale. If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list. There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [23] and [24] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [25] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [26] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [27] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [28] is the subject's company's website. [29] is an advertising website. [30] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️) 11:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WKUW-LD (  | talk | history | 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; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 ( talk) 16:28, 8 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! 23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sept Days (  | talk | history | 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 SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14). "七天•10周年:加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中,又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册,因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报,一周七天,其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."

      The article notes: "2007年,七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场,对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道,七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人;"

      From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"

    2. Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). "加拿大蒙城,一位金融人的华丽变身" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体,创办16年,累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体,也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部,举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动,成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"

      From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."

      The article notes: "2006年,尹灵再次辞职,创办华文报纸《七天》。那年,她40岁。"

      From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."

      The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法,坚持自己采访、自己撰稿,一下子吸引了大批读者。"

      From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."

    3. Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). "加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》" [Canada's "Sept Days" media releases French newspaper "La Connexion"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴,庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说,值此《七天》传媒10周年之际,"

      From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"

    4. Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). "加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [Sino-US Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时,亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."

    5. "New voices, expanding horizons. When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well". The Gazette. 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."

    6. Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). "Fixer upper on the Hill". Politico. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."

    7. Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). "《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发" [The book "A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television.

      The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发,正式与读者见面。"

      From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days ( Chinese: 七天) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption. I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WKUT-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Single-level (  | talk | history | 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:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:PARTIAL says everything it needs to BrigadierG ( talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep in some form - could redirect somewhere useful. JoshuaAuble ( talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Kieran Goss (rugby union) (  | talk | history | 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. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Mid-Life Crustacean (  | talk | history | 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 many problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sampie Mastriet (  | talk | history | 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. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. ( non-admin closure) Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WZDS-LD (  | talk | history | 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) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook