The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasmien Kurdi#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yasmien Kurdi discography

Yasmien Kurdi discography (  | talk | history | 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 was tagged as unreferenced since 2016. This is just an album listing which might violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Redirect to Yasmien_Kurdi#Discography as per WP:ATD at best. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography: Not large enough to be disruptive to the main article/need to stand alone. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography, Correct me if im wrong, but Yasmien Kurdi does not feel notable enough to have a discography article. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 9:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge back as we usually due with such unreferenced lists or discogs. Bearian ( talk) 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Amanda Nylander

Amanda Nylander (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater who fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the standards of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• I am also nominating the following related page:

Isabelle Nylander (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Sweden. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Both subjects seem to meet the GNG with the Skate Today article already in the article, which provides WP:SIGCOV, along with native language sources such as [ [1]]. Let'srun ( talk) 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In addition to what Let'srun has pointed out above, I've expanded the article a little bit, building on Swedish news sources. / Julle ( talk) 19:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Julles additions AlexandraAVX ( talk) 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Julle ( talk)'s expansion and additions of news sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per Julle ( talk)'s expansion and good work to update the article. Also per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tango Balekile

Tango Balekile (  | talk | history | 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 handful of sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep There's this, this and this found in a simple search. Enough for a GNG pass I think. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  The first two sources are ok, but are from the same day and about the same topic, while the third source has 3-ish IRS sentences and so is pretty far from being the sustained SIGCOV expected for N. Can you find more sources? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:17, 18 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) 17:41, 24 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!} 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not enough coverage for a comprehensive independent biography IMO. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete The article, while impressive in length, is based entirely on primary sources. The three sources provided by Rugbyfan22 are helpful, but not quite enough. The HeraldLive source in particular is just an interview. I am willing to reconsider if another source can be found, but I couldn't find one. Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood ( talk) 10:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - appears notable, see Jang, Urdu Point, Dawn, [2], Business Recorder, Urdu Point, Daily Outcome, Dunya, Jang, etc. Again, I'd like to stress that the nominator posted 7 AfD nominations with identical rationales with 2 minutes, no indication of any real WP:BEFORE being performed. -- Soman ( talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Soman, Urdu Point and Daily Outcome are not even RS while the coverage in rest of the sources are not sig/in-depth. Do we need a standalone WP article on every university exists on this planet? Fails WP:NCORP IMO. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:08, 21 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) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Does any law from the government or state say it's a public university? Charlie ( talk) 04:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • CharlieMehta, This is what HEC says HEC NOC granted provisionally for 6 months upto June, 2017​. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ CharlieMehta: [3] 2A04:4A43:8F7F:F92B:181:CFCB:7DE9:2831 ( talk) 13:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets WP:NONPROFIT. It is a state-funded university, established through an act of parliament ( passed in 2016). 188.29.153.221 ( talk) 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Social Spirit

Social Spirit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An essay full of WP:OR presenting a novel in non-encyclopedic and often unclear language. The sources don't validate "social spirit" as a unique concept in philosophy; instead, this essay appears to represent the author's own views. Given a lack of BEFORE references to "social spirit" in the context of this article I can't figure out a way to improve this that would allow it to stay. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spirituality. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 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!} 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per SK1 as the nominator has given no coherent deletion rationale - the cited sources in the article that have "social spirit" in the title (i.e. Shablin, Smirnov, and Lazarev) clearly indicate that this meets WP:GNG as a notable topic. Probably it needs to be renamed "Social spirit" and any WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH should be removed, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Psychastes ( talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is not an essay because it is written based on reliable sources. Here we should also mention the “Handwörterbuch der Soziologie”, compiled by Götz Briefs, in 1931. The concept of “social spirit” was presented in that dictionary as known one. This also justifies the mention of him on Wikipedia, even from the point of view of the history of sociology. There were other works in German in the twentieth century, but due to the Second World War, research in this direction was complicated. This article appears to be an essay because there are no sources on this topic in English. But in general in science, this concept has its place. Russian articles contain abstracts about social spirit in English. Никитааа ( talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

GNG is not just about sourcing. It’s a two-part test, and the second part is: “It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.” My (valid) deletion rationale was WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, which are both aspects of that policy. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Dclemens1971 - given that you added a "globalize" tag to the article, does that mean you're conceding that this article meets WP:GNG? because if you believe there are other perspectives that should be included in the article that's not exactly compatible with deleting it. I'm also changing my vote to Speedy Keep as it's plain that no coherent deletion rationale has been given. Psychastes ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I added the tag during New Page Review because it very much appears to have a narrow perspective on a concept covered elsewhere encyclopedically on Wikipedia. I absolutely do not concede that this means it meets GNG, see above. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The statement that “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Russia” is untrue, or at least a misunderstanding. On the contrary, this article deals only with examples from ancient and European history and sociology. This article does not contain even a single example from Russian history precisely because the idea of ​​a universal tripartite social structure is very rarely found in Russian sources. The editor of this tag is probably motivated not by objectivity, but by the "canceling of science". 95.10.7.132 ( talk) 16:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Every single source that refers directly to "social spirit" is in Russian. The other sources in the article refer to other concepts like "geist" and "national spirit." That's why the article reflects a Russian perspective. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

But still, the article does not contain a single EXAMPLE dealing with Russia. This is the untruth in the tag. Or is the problem that Eastern European authors are considering a Western European retrospective?

And one more question: if you admit that the article refers directly to reliable sources, why do you think that this is an essay? 88.250.24.46 ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Essays can refer to reliable sources. The problem isn't the sourcing, the problem is that this is pushing a particular intellectual theory in an unencyclopedic manner. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

To be precise, not all of the authors of these sources are Russian. For example, Lazarev is Jewish by origin, but only Russian-speaking. And these are two big differences. So this is also not a completely correct statement about exclusively Russian perspectives in the article. Никитааа ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

First of all, the tag says the "perspectives in this article deal primarily with Russia," not exclusively. And what could you possibly mean constructively by saying that Russian-speaking Jews can't represent a Russian perspective? Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Primarily, perspectives in this article deal with science. 176.220.242.60 ( talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I hope more editors will come, evaluate the article and sources and participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete a poorly-translated version of Никитааа's (also-mediocre) ruwiki article, that doesn't understand English idiom well enough to claim that "social spirit" is a concept in English. Geist would be the only plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Firstly, it is not a translation, but a text written by one author, and in one case it is in his native language, and in the other it is not. Secondly, Wikipedia is an international project and its rules do not limit the participation of foreign-language authors in writing articles. Thirdly, perfect articles in Wikipedia are usually created by collective efforts, in constructive collaboration. Fourthly, it is probably wrong to assume that the number of concepts in English has already reached its limit and there are no prospects for its development. 176.41.175.117 ( talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Whenever a page here relies on a single author, it is de facto original research, especially when it is written as an essay. Wikipedia has never published original research. Bearian ( talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not an essay or original research because it is written based on reliably sources. All Wikipedia articles begin with one person writing them, and only then do others take part. 88.250.24.46 ( talk) 07:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Johanna Bennett (producer)

Johanna Bennett (producer) (  | talk | history | 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:CREATIVE and WP:BASIC. Lacking in-depth coverage and pretty much all of it is just because she's Tony Bennett's daughter. This People article is the best source I could find and it's an "All About Tony Bennett's Kids" article with a short section on her. Notability is not inherited. C F A 💬 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Leaving aside "Tony Bennett's daughter" (because notability is not inherited) what's left doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV.-- AntientNestor ( talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as noted above. Very little of what she has done amounts to being notable as we define it. Her only claims to notability are her father and being on the board of an organization. Bearian ( talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. This article has transformed significantly from the version nominated for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep. I thank Shortiefourten for their work expanding it. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ceres, Washington

Ceres, Washington (  | talk | history | 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 belated prod undeletion: Ceres is a rail station with a general store, the post office was cabinet in the general store [4]. It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted.

Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom ( talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom ( talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete (as the PRODder) for reasons given above. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nomination. Non-notable community. TH1980 ( talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rewrite/reclassify as a former community. A long read is available at the Talk:Ceres, Washington page with details in early history of Ceres. I agree that such a community no longer exists, but it did from the late 1890s and with some strength into the late 1930s. Small, rural communities are rarely given due historical attention, but thanks to local reporting, even if in snippets, we can see the Ceres community that once existed. If via consensus we keep the article, I volunteer to rewrite and expand the page. Shortiefourten ( talk) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The sources compiled by Shortiefourten on the article talk page shows this is a recognized populated place sufficient to be kept. The Origin of Washington Geographic Names sources also calls it a "town", though I understand that to be in the American way that rural areas gathered community identities.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to rewrite this article as proposed by one editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz Me, me, me! I do, I do, I do! I'm out of action this Memorial Day weekend but I can certainly start working on it by Tuesday, using the sourcing already found. Thanks! Shortiefourten ( talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the sourcing detailed on the Talk page. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment article has been expanded using sources from the Talk page and rewritten to declare it a former community (no sources since the 1950s refers to it as such) and now as a locale. Feel free to copyedit or use differing terminology to describe Ceres. Thanks to all who participated, and let's Keep this thing! Shortiefourten ( talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Coat hangered would be a better description of what happened there. It doesn't exist and her revisions only further highlight that. James.folsom ( talk) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article now has basically been rewritten. Does that influence opinions? An editorial assessment of changes made would help with this closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The expansion and subsequent sourcing on this in the last week or so has improved this tremendously. A tremendous amount of sourcing backs up this article. Category:Ghost town articles by importance shows Wikipedia with over 2,000 such articles. It's OK to have ghost towns on Wikipedia, as long as they are adequately sourced. — Maile ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  if it were a ghost town, instead just a place where trains picked up cargo, water and coal. James.folsom ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep because there are 41 references on this page. SpokaneWilly ( talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Guan Xueting

Guan Xueting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater who fails WP:NSKATE; bronze/silver medal placements at the national championship level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Much more results if one searches for the name with hanzi, rather than with pinyin. I've added a couple of sources. / Julle ( talk) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per Julle, but aside from the sources about her abduction that Julle added to the article (which I am worried that some may consider them as run-out-of-mill or 1E), I have further added three sources from Sohu and China Daily which detailed her figure skating and post-retirement coaching career. Fulfils GNG. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Eissporthalle Iserlohn

Eissporthalle Iserlohn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing to add from the article on de.wiki. not seeing much else which could be considered against the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Germany. JMWt ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Iserlohn Roosters, whose home stadium this is - WP:ATD. Ingratis ( talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Eastmain. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 17:41, 24 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!} 23:04, 24 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, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Improvements during AfD clear up any doubts about notability.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was restore dab‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Spitalfields Market

Spitalfields Market (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a duplicate of Old Spitalfields Market which has existed since 2004. The page does not relate to New Spitalfields Market which has its own page. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, and Shopping malls. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Restore dab for which its useful. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• I'm leaning to restoring the dab page. Bearian ( talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Varna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ivan Portnih

Ivan Portnih (  | talk | history | 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 there is literally no source to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical data, etc. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Bulgaria. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect >>>> List of mayors of Varna. Djflem ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 New Jersey earthquake

2024 New Jersey earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.-- MarioProtIV ( ^talk/ _contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Rarity is not notability.

  >Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after

  Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.

  WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. -- 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.

  The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [5] and [6]

  Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn ( talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.

  Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.

  WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.

  WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.

  WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'

  WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle ( talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn ( talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle ( talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I've already made my case before as I nominated it the first time, but now that no one talks about it anymore it's even more obvious it shouldn't be an article. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per all the above keeps, as well as a comment that this was largely settled in the last AfD, nothing has changed, the arguments have not changed, the policies have not changed, and that this is largely a waste of valuable editors' time. Tduk ( talk) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Value Inquiry Book Series

Value Inquiry Book Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for uncertain notability for 13 years. No sourcing to show a pass of the GNG. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete not seeing any independent coverage Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:32, 31 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 Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023. Editors can merge any content they feel is relevant and discuss a change in the article title on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2024

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2024 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With all due respect to the page creator, I think it's evident by now that it's past the time for the " Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic" series to end. Case numbers from Malaysia and New Zealand every few days, two arbitrary case counts from other countries, a couple thresholds and anniversaries, and links to WHO situation reports, do not a notable or encyclopedic topic make. All of the "countries and territories" with no infections have zero permanent population anyway. This topic doesn't meet WP:NOTDATABASE or WP:NLIST; there is not enough worldwide noteworthy content out there to justify the existence of such a timeline nowadays, as opposed to the early pandemic.

Due to the decline of testing, case numbers are not accurate anymore anyway. "The actual number of cases is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases – this is due to limited testing." - Our World in Data. Experts from WHO and elsewhere asked by Time are uncertain it even is a pandemic anymore, with some outright saying it is not; there will never be an official cutoff for an exact end date of the pandemic since WHO does not officially classify pandemics (also noted in Time and elsewhere). And because COVID-19 is expected to circulate indefinitely and become an endemic respiratory virus, this series must end at some point even though case numbers continue to be reported (as they are for seasonal flu, which we don't track on Wikipedia). I believe that time is here, as evidenced by what the series has shrunk into. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, Medicine, and Lists. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 and rename to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic since 2023. Agree with nom, week-by-week case numbers in individual countries are simply not what should be included in a global article like this. I want to give props to the editors here, but great folks have also been keeping Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Malaysia medical cases chart and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/New Zealand medical cases chart updated for COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia and COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand so putting this data in prose form is not necessary. I then recommend trimming the target article and previous monthly articles of routine country-specific data updates and only including significant news (which does not include random singers and athletes contracting it). Reywas92 ^Talk 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Wouldn't "Timeline of COVID-19 since 2023" be more useful, since as noted, whether or not it is actually still "pandemic" is now disputed by experts (and likely to become an even less favored viewpoint in the future)? I still think we can just delete it and end the series, but I thought I'd raise this. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Agree with the nom; this isn't as important as it once was. We know have moved on, the world is open again, and Covid is more of an annoyance than a pandemic... We need to stop this series of yearly/monthly articles at some point and 2024 seems to be a logical place to stop. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not so notable for now. Orientls ( talk) 07:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Having worked on that page as well as the New Zealand and Malaysian pages, I agree that it will probably be best for me to stop working on the global timeline page. I am glad someone raised this topic since I need someone to tell me when to stop. Will accept any decision taken by the Wikipedia community. Andykatib 08:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Reywas92. It's not impossible that there will be COVID events this year suitable for a timeline, but the weekly updates from Malaysia and New Zealand are not that. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect can be fine too. Orientls ( talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete There may be a place for discussing still-ongoing DUE issues related to the pandemic (probably on the endemic article or something similar), but it's too SYNTHy to call it 'COVID-19 pandemic since x' because that implies a pandemic is occurring, which requires compliance with WP:BURDEN to state. So it's best to delete for now. 'Timeline of COVID-19 since x' is better and we can keep that in mind depending on how sources comment on the subject. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect with Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 and rename to Timeline of COVID-19 since 2023 per Reywas92. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 18:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

TextMagic

TextMagic (  | talk | history | 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 notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: An article about a firm with a corporate SMS product, which has changed hands a couple of times, most recently with a share offering on Nasdaq Tallinn. In its current state, the article references concern its share offering, which falls under trivial coverage. An earlier article version had this Small Business Trends piece (2015) as a reference, but that is effectively a company Q&A. There is also a 2023 item on a company acquisition but that is announcement-based coverage. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 18:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Bombsters

The Bombsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, definitely unnotable. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: No coverage in RS and the band appears to have fizzled out. Their youtube channel only has 300 something subscribers... There is no news about them, other than a few places to stream their music. I doubt they were ever notable by our standards, even less today. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Jewish Press Association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Simon Rockower Award

Simon Rockower Award (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into American Jewish Press Association. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, no WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge: I agree with the proposal. Simon Rockower should be merged into American Jewish Press Association, and then converted into a redirect.

  Eric Schucht ( talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Henry Robinson (scientist)

Henry Robinson (scientist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same, ^[1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B- t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. -- D'n'B- t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 ( talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC). reply
• delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Is this him [7]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal ( talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian ( talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 08:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Cecil Dumond

Cecil Dumond (  | talk | history | 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) 17:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete A few team announcement bits, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 31 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Duwayne Smart

Duwayne Smart (  | talk | history | 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. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 31 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. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Josh Katzen

Josh Katzen (  | talk | history | 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. Contested PROD. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 31 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!} 07:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Abbas El-Akkad Experimental Language School

Abbas El-Akkad Experimental Language School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 15:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CCOS, GNG and NORG. Bgv. ( talk) 08:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, nothing in the article is a unique detail of the school. I am not sure how to find more sources due to the language barrier but the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia at most gives only one more. ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:49, 31 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.

Per WP:EVENTCRIT:

1. _{Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.} Event does not fulfill this criteria.
2. _{Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).} No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
3. _{Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.} Event has limited coverage.
4. _{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.} Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.

Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.

The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.

[8] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Lolzer3000: Are you in favour of the deletion? Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)‎ reply

BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop

BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop (  | talk | history | 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 was merged to Broadcast Music, Inc.#BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop, but it does not have that enough sources to establish notability. A {{ notability}} tag was placed three days ago but no new sourcing was introduced. Toadette ^Edit! 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep. This is an important musical theatre institution, numerous sources about which are easily found on Google as well as pre-internet sources. It already had plenty of good sources, and I added a couple more. This article should be greatly expanded. I think the nominator should do a Google news search and withdraw this AfD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly notable, given the number, range and weight of sources (the retrospective on its fortieth anniversary in the industry magazine Backstage should be enough od an indication on its own really, but there are numerous others). - SchroCat ( talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Clearly a notable organization with lots of WP:SIGCOV across several decades in a wide range of sources. It even gets 47 hits in google scholar which shows there is coverage in academic publications as well as in the many newspaper and magazines used as sources in the article already. This was not a well thought through nomination. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

MacGregor (filmmaker)

MacGregor (filmmaker) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable filmmaker with an unsourced BLP Niafied ( talk) 07:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Spain, and United States of America. sig
• Keep: Unsourced? Yes. Rewrite? Needed. But I don't think the subject person is non-notable. He was listed as the cinematographer for several big productions in the article, including Vivarium, Fall, Kandahar, and A Thousand Suns, as well as a documentary film The Mauritania Railway: Backbone of the Sahara credited with his real name Miguel de Olaso. For each one I found sources to back it. ( The Jewish Chronicle and Screen Daily for Vivarium [9] [10], Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall [11] [12], The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar [13]& [14], Inverse for A Thousand Suns [15], and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [16]) So this already fulfills the third criterion of WP:FILMMAKER, where a person has to play a major role in co-creating a well-known work with multiple reliable sources to cover or review it. I also found an interview of the subject person with Red Shark News [17], which covered his early life in detail, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this source and whether it can be considered as demonstrating notability. Nonetheless, I think fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER would already be sufficient for me to vote Keep. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 12:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Prince of Erebor. I can see why it would attract a deletion nomination though. He was interviewed by Red Shark News and there are a couple other good articles to use. He's picked up some good awards. I can't understand why though with this much work, there are no refs. I had a quick look in the history and there were some a while back. But they're gone. Rather than draft or redirect, a bold tag to improve this article is a must. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Per rationale above. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via G5‎ by CactusWriter. This is a procedural close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kerry Xuefeng Chen

Kerry Xuefeng Chen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly WP:CSD#G5 per the SPI case. 虹易 ( talk) 15:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, Technology, Internet, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• @ 虹易 Do you have any further arguments towards deletion besides association? While it certainly needs work, the article seems okay at a glance from an inclusion standpoint. Aaron Liu ( talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete: The article has been moved to draft space deleted per G5. @ 虹易: The nominator may consider withdrawing and speedy keeping this discussion per WP:CSK#1, as the subject article no longer exists. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Prince of Erebor Was it moved to draftspace or entirely deleted? I wanted to look at it more... Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Aaron Liu: Ah, my mistake. The page has already been deleted by CactusWriter, instead of being moved to draftspace. I guess you have to request for undeletion if you would like to continue working on the page. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as G5 by Bbb23. This is a procedural close and restoration of the page, if desired, should be discussed with the deleting admin or another uninvolved admin, who may restore it at their discretion. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

ATRenew

ATRenew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly WP:CSD#G5 per the SPI case. 虹易 ( talk) 15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep publicly traded company on NYSE, has plenty citations in the article and more in Google. I have found these additional citations Seeking Alpha and Business Insider. Hkkingg ( talk) 08:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hkkingg, Benzinga (the actual source of the BI article) is not an RS, and it says right there at the bottom that This article is from an unpaid external contributor. It does not represent Benzinga's reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy. You've been here over a year, please do some basic due diligence on your !votes, this is almost a better argument for delete than keep. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• The article has been moved to draft space per G5. @ 虹易: The nominator may consider withdrawing and speedy keeping this discussion per WP:CSK#1, as the subject article no longer exists. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 16:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Noise

The Noise (  | talk | history | 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:NPRODUCT, no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Surprising lack of coverage in third-party sources. One thing to note that it was most recently positioning itself as a "magazine" rather than a "newspaper" – but searching for it as a magazine hasn't turned up much else either. Searched ProQuest, Wikipedia Library (general EBSCOHost), Internet Archive, and Google with multiple search string variants. Does not meet WP:GNG and OK to delete. Cielquiparle ( talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Death of Li Keqiang

Death of Li Keqiang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two Chinese supreme leaders ( Mao & Jiang) have articles about their death, and his funeral was far less grand than these two. Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Coddlebean, which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale. Folly Mox ( talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep I agree with @ Folly Mox your nominations need to provide a clear rationale. Saying x similar article exists or y similar article doesn't exist isn't a rationale for deletion. The article is both on its face impressively sourced and in need of cleanup, but I don't think there's any discernible policy-based rationale here. Oblivy ( talk) 01:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3 – I don't see anything resembling a rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. The article looks fine at a quick glance. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep: per Mx. Granger; WP:CSK#3, as the nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Also, I disagree with the example the nominator raised. Death of Hu Yaobang [ zh did exist in zhwiki, and it is clearly notable as well since it is literally the triggering point of the June 4th Incident with many in-depth analysis from academic or media sources. The fact that it does not have an article in enwiki is simply because no one had created it yet, and this argument is clearly a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#3 as no valid deletion rationale is provided. I also concur with Mx Granger and Prince of Erebor above. S5A-0043 ^Talk 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 15:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Mannheim stabbing

2024 Mannheim stabbing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Keep

  1. The event has a lot of news coverage

  2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera

  3. There are multiple victims

  4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto ( talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess ( talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 ( talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.

  As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks. Volkish Kurden ( talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Michael Stürzenberger would appear to be a notable victim and the perpetrator is likely to face trial. There is likely to be ongoing media coverage. At least allow the German judicial processes to run their course, before passing final judgement. This incident is already a sub-article of the Michael Stürzenberger, so a Merger with that article is also an alternative to deletion. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Michael Stürzenberger. There are alot of WP:CRYSTAL arguments here. I see no reason why this can't be covered in another article for the time being. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and Salman Rushdie are separate articles; and also taking into account that there were others affected in the attack besides Michael Stürzenberger himself, I think it is best to keep them as independent articles. ComradeHektor ( talk) 04:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia ( 2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 ( talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator ( talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis ( talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment:

1. when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
2. it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
3. this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important. 83.185.46.97 ( talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 ( talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza ( talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep.

1. Although this is related to Michael Stürzenberger in that the event happened during one of his protests, the event attack is not just related to him and his protest, but has a wider character including whether German Police policies and training were instrumental or contributory to the death of the policeman (which has nothing to do with Michael Stürzenberger)

2. The stabbing has received global media coverage to an worldwide audience for whom Michael Stürzenberger is an unknown or at least ancillary figure.

3. If the stabbing hadn't happened Michael Stürzenberger's protest would have been unreported beyond the local media of Mannheim.

4. To subjugate the murder of the policeman as a sub-topic of Michael Stürzenberger's wiki entry would be to diminish the policeman's bravery and tarnish his death in service, when in fact his courage and sacrifice should be lauded. 92.238.123.206 ( talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP Loads of media coverage by both media and on social media Ghostingb ( talk) 21:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Have any of the keep votes read WP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment

1. I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
2. is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
3. you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article. 83.185.46.97 ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• DeleteMerge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPath ^talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.-- Eptalon ( talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep are you for real? Tons of coverage and this is on par with 2023 Quran burnings in Sweden and 2019 London Bridge stabbing. Alexceltare2 ( talk) 10:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. A multiple casualty incident by European norms which occurred amid heated sociocultural discussions in Germany and the continent, further exacerbated by the EP election. Borgenland ( talk) Borgenland ( talk) 16:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Update: 1 person is dead. Borgenland ( talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a repository of news stories. Any !vote suggesting that it's notable based solely on news coverage should be discarded. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  As per WP:N(E), widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Several people were stabbed and it resulted in the death of a police officer, furthermore the event recieved world wide news coverage. Durraz0 ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• keep notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux ( talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, I have read WP:NOTNEWS. Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to keep. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have read WP:NOTNEWS, too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 ( talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 ( talk) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and close. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Abstain per most above; see WP:SNOWBALL and just get this over with.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep I don't fault the nominator, but this article has grown a lot in the last few days as the coverage continues to expand and in my opinion it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment There's been another stabbing in the very same city, a far right politician is the target again so I think we can put a fork in this discussion and possibly expand the scope of the article to include the new stabbing as well. Killuminator ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete A minor incident that is unfortunate but will soon be forgotten by almost everyone. Low notability.-- EpicAdventurer ( talk) 07:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Epic remark, indeed. I take it as sarcasm, for those who don't get it. A policeman is dead. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  We are neither a newspaper nor a media agency! EpicAdventurer ( talk) 19:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep and move to Assault on Michael Stürzenberger as the was the target (still is a target for many radicals, probably). Open hostility to him and his views is shown here and elsewhere. Also, a few days later, a "2024 Mannheim stabbing, part deux" on a local politician when he caught a guy who had removed/stolen his posters. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep widespread global news coverage _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per P1221. Procyon117 ( talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose renaming I already voted keep a few days ago but I want to add that I'm opposed to changing the title to 'Assault on Michael Stürzenberger' or something similar. There are multiple victims here and the only fatality was a police officer, not Stürzenberger. The police officer, Rouven Laur, has received significant media coverage as well. I'm also not sure whether there's enough evidence to say the attacker specifically targeted Stürzenberger or just the rally in general. Johndavies837 ( talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Citybuzz

Citybuzz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 -- wooden superman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood ( talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nomination this fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non- WP:ROTM coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I've added several sources and notability is now established per WP:GNG. ROTM is an essay, is subjective, and is trumped by GNG, a guideline. Route is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 as this one has sufficient sourcing available online. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Though perhaps, this article ought to be moved to Brighton & Hove bus routes 37 and 37B as I couldn't find any coverage on "City Buzz" or "Citybuzz" which may be what prompted this AfD. Garuda3 ( talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I disagree with your claim that WP:GNG has now been met for this routine bus route. The sources you've added are from local news sites and hardly meet WP:SIGCOV. -- wooden superman 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - The sources in question added above just confirm that the route exists, that it will continue to exist, or that it will change the timetable on which it exists. This verifies that the route exists, but it doesn't contribute notability as the significance of the route is never discussed. BrigadierG ( talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sources don't need to discuss the "significance" of something. That's subjective. They just need to discuss it, per WP:GNG. Garuda3 ( talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

There needs to be secondary commentary. The above are all dependent sources that are basically just reprints of the local travel authority saying that they're doing a thing. And secondly, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE which states "news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". BrigadierG ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

ROUTINE refers to events. This article is about a bus route, not an event, so that policy isn't relevant here. I disagree with the need for commentary - that may be appropriate for an artistic work like a film or book but doesn't feel applicable to something practical, in this case a bus route but also buildings, railway stations etc. Garuda3 ( talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, in this case the event is the funding of this bus route, or the changing timetable of this bus route, or so on. Generally though, WP:MILL. BrigadierG ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

By that logic, you could argue any update on anything ever is an EVENT. I think that's an extreme interpretation and not what the policy was intended for. It was intended for Wikipedia articles about events. WP:MILL is an essay, is subjective, and not policy. Garuda3 ( talk) 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WUVM-LD

WUVM-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) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: The ex-Una Vez Más stations may be a marginal step up from the completely non-notable HC2/Innovate stations that have never been anything else (complete with securing cable and even satellite coverage), but with little-to-no significant coverage that means little by the more GNG-based 2024 inclusion standards (and the station's earliest days were as a definitely non-notable ValueVision/ShopNBC repeater). (This article has been around since 2004, which was a time of far lower inclusion standards sitewide; keep in mind, this topic area was lax about inclusion standards almost right up to this 2021 RfC.) This happens to be another a nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles; that it was nominated there and then does not suggest the existence of the required sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 31 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!} 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WDWW-LD

WDWW-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) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Looks like this has only carried full-time national services in its nearly 20 years, even before DTV America/HC2/Innovate took over. I doubt this station has had any significant coverage at any point. A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009, and yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 31 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!} 22:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

WYGA-CD

WYGA-CD (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: This station has been around a bit longer than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but it doesn't appear to have ever been anything other than a carrier of full-time national services—or, more relevantly, the subject of any significant coverage—in all that time. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and another nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles, WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 31 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. (non-admin closure) 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gul Wareen

Gul Wareen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Moved to mainspace immediate after being declined and pushed back for further work. Since there is the potential for notability to be proven I suggest the outcome be to draftify. I have also nominated the picture currently featured since the licence is in doubt. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN as presented here. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: When I encountered this BLP, rather than immediately nom it for deletion, I decided to give it a chance by draftifying it. However, the BLPs creator Pashtonyar moved it back to the main NS after the review was declined. The subject does not satisfy the GNG as well NSINGER, and the BLP currently relies heavily on trivial mentions and ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per Saqib. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:47, 31 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 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York (  | talk | history | 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 poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [| User| Talk| Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD ( talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki ( talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg ( talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f ^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:FORK, and WP:OR. Bearian ( talk) 15:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Deleted G11‎. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dr. Sri LakshmiSrinivasGuruji

Dr. Sri LakshmiSrinivasGuruji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, by COI editor. Requires deletion. BLP issues. Fails WP:BIO. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm unsure what this person does, making determination of notability difficult. Very PROMO and I find no sources about this person. Might even speedy delete for promotion. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Two major instances of copyright violation have been detected and removed. There is barely enough left to form a stub. After redaction of the copyvios I doubt there is sufficient remaining to form an article. The second tranche was redacted post nomination. As nominator I would have no objection to a speedy deletion and close. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 17:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater)

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater) (  | talk | history | 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Per the discussion below, this AFD can be closed as Speedy keep as I withdraw the nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Hong Kong. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I found some Chinese sources which mentioned he won champion in the senior level of 2007 Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships (where the national-level Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships is a part of; see Oriental Daily News [18]), so as a national figure skating champion, the subject person already fulfills the second criterion of WP:NSKATE. I also found additional sources which mentioned him representing Hong Kong in the Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy and Asian Winter Games (See The Sun [19] and China Central Television [20]), although I consider them as passing mentions and may not be able to pass GNG. Nonetheless, I think passing WP:NSKATE is already sufficient for me to vote for a keep, at least not a delete. And I suggest the nominator can do some WP:BEFORE searches for sources in the subject person's native languages before filing for deletions. This seems like the third time for me to vote for a figure skater article nominated by the same editor. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 12:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see no evidence that he won a gold medal at the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships. His ISU profile shows no placement at the 2007 championships. He did win the silver medal on three separate occasionas, but a silver medal at a national-level championship does not meet the standards of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Bgsu98: Hi Bgsu. Please check the Oriental Daily News source I attached. The title reads "The heavily favoured Tatsuya Tanaka wins Champion", and the body goes "The Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships have concluded successfully. The Japanese-Chinese mixed Tatsuya Tanaka, who will represent Hong Kong at the Asian Winter Games, was the hot favorite and won champion in the men's division..." (香 港 花 樣 滑 冰 及 短 道 速 滑 錦 標 賽 圓 滿 結 束 ， 即 將 代 表 香 港 出 戰 亞 洲 冬 季 運 動 會 的 日 中 混 血 兒 田 中 達 也 ， 大 熱 贏 得 男 子 組 冠 軍...) Oriental Daily News is an established and mainstream newspaper in Hong Kong, and is generally regarded as a reliable source for non-political and non-advertorial content in zhwiki through consensus. (See the zhwiki's List of Perennial sources) I am not sure why it was not recorded on his ISU profile, and why this discrepancy aroused. (Please enlighten me if you find out the reasons behind) But since no discussion in the enwiki had deemed Oriental untrustworthy, so I don't see why this source is questionable in this case and I tend to trust the independent and secondary RS. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 01:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    That's interesting. I did see the article you cited and ran it through a translator. No idea why a first-place win would have been left off this skater's ISU profile. Nor is he cited on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships chart for men's singles. I checked another reliable figure skating site, but they have no records for any of the Hong Kong championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    Prince of Erebor Okay, I have added both skaters named in the article to the charts on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships article. I cannot find sourcing elsewhere, but I'm guessing 2008 was just when someone at Wikipedia started to keep track and no one bothered to go backwards. This AFD can be closed as Speedy keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    • @ Bgsu98: Yea, I was thinking the same thing. After searching, I found some articles, as well as the ISU database you cited, recorded the Skating Championships dating back to at least 2003. However, the Hong Kong Skating Union website and Wikipedia only listed results up to 2008. It seems there was no systematic online archive of the championship results prior to 2008. Thanks for updating the article as well! I have made some minor corrections though, since Hong Kong uses Cantonese rather than Mandarin, the source should be labeled as written in Chinese, and the skater's name should be romanized using Jyutping instead of Mandarin pinyin. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

      I never studied any languages east of Europe, so I'll trust your judgment! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

DXN (brand)