Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chikki Panday

Chikki Panday (  | talk | history | 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 User4edits ( talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits ( talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I don't think this is the same perso:n www.opindia.com/2021/11/mumbai-police-summons-chikki-brother-of-chunky-panday-ncb-aryan-khan-drug-case/, which is a blacklisted spam site here. I see nothing for this businessman we'd use for sourcing; nothing at all that I can find to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A quick Google News search for Chikki Panday and चिक्की पांडे (in Hindi) has yielded a substantial number of articles. A new section has been added, accompanied by some sources, and additional citations will be appended soon. Also, yes this is the same person mentioned in the link you shared above so the subject satisfies the notability criteria outlined in  WP:GNG. 1.23.250.87 ( talk) 07:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Does not establish NBIO or pass GNG. User4edits ( talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Brother of a famous actor" isn't notable. Had he not been summoned by police, he'd still be a non-notable businessman. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, as emphasized in my vote above, aligns with the WP:GNG standard. WP:SIG specifies that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have cited two additional sources to further substantiate the content and will continue to augment the references for a comprehensive overview. 1.23.251.79 ( talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits ( talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI the article is not based on WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY and it appears there might be an oversight in reviewing the WP:GNG guidelines, which specify that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I also must point out that in this edit, you removed two of his official positions in a central government institution without any valid reason. Furthermore, attempting to suggest that the article is based on an WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY biography is not accurate. 1.23.251.79 ( talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Saying an appointment in a committee of MTNL, that too only a specific region of Mumbai is equivalent to a committee of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) is absurd, and so is being named as a member for representing one out of 28 states in 2008 (16 years ago). Both are misleading and appear advertising. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and will be dealt as per this DR, I see you've undone my edit, best of luck. I don't own anything here. User4edits ( talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 'Week Keep -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per @Oaktree b and @User4edits, no notability Tehonk ( talk) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject has substantial coverage in various reputable sources aligning with the criteria outlined in both GNG and BASIC. As per these guidelines individuals are considered notable if they have received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Furthermore it's emphasized that even if the coverage in any single source may not be extensive the aggregation of multiple independent sources suffices to establish notability. Given the presence of multiple sourced materials within the article the subject in question unequivocally meets the criteria stipulated by these policies to affirm notability.- FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 02:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's worth noting that an analysis of pageviews for the article reveals consistent engagement with significant monthly views since its inception. Notably in 2015 the article garnered nearly a million views on two separate occasions. While pageviews alone do not establish notability this observation underscores the level of interest and attention garnered by the subject. Although unrelated to the notability policies it serves as an additional testament to the subject's relevance and public interest. - FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17, BADNAC speedy overturned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

User4edits ( talk) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Which is a red flag, not helping the deletion request. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Fitindia above. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS  💬 07:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if keep voters highlighted the sources they believe show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The subject seems notable to me based on the sources provided. I performed a quick search on the subject and there appears to be some level of notability passing GNG. Mevoelo ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I just wanted to mention that there might be an article on this subject in the future if better sourcing was found and an editor went about creating it in Draft space and getting some AFC feedback on a draft article. But right now, the consensus here is to delete this particular article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Egov.Press

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

Created as part of a cross-wiki spam campaign for which the creator and his socks have been blocked. The campaigns for which the site garnered attention were notable, but no case has been made that these happened because of Egov/Alash's petitions. Nor is there any other claim to notability. Sourcing is generally unreliable and not independent of the site. Accepted in good faith through AfC by an established editor who is on board with this AfD and therefore this could not be draftified but if folks think this can be improved by someone without a COI, I have no objection to draftification.

NB: Appears headed for deletion in de wiki de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16._Februar_2024#Egov.Press whose notability standards are less strict, was speedied on IT Wiki Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Without independent sources, there's no claim for NCORP or GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and this. ‍ Relativity 01:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and the canvassing of users (that I personally experienced) both on- and off-wiki, even after being chastised about it, gives the impression that this is being done for publicity's sake rather than out of any encyclopedic virtue. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 03:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Star Mississippi If the author of the article is directly to blame for disseminating the message and other illegal actions, then what does the article with sources have to do with it? Having studied the whole situation, it seems to me that you have a personal dislike for the author. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:CCBC:9A01:BC92:77A9 ( talk) 07:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I think the following facts need to be taken into account when making a decision. These Kazakh news portals completely or partially devoted an article to the petition site as a separate topic.
  • These resources criticized the petition site.
  • In addition, the site’s petitions are mentioned many times in various foreign news reports. Wikipedia's rules state, When assessing the significance of web content, consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable impact on culture, society, entertainment, sports, economics, history, literature, science, or education. I don’t care about the article, but having studied the situation, I think that the article should be revised and left. This is up to the administration. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:F1B5:49DF:C11B:D812 ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As it turned out, articles in Spanish, Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz Wikipedia. Removed from Russian, Italian and French Wikipedia. 217.76.76.165 ( talk) 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, cross wiki spam, blatant promotion. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also piped the link to dewiki deletion discussion. No sources found in English, if at least, and so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Adding additional statements, the article in all other languages are exactly identical, using the same set of pictures and sources. The eswiki article has a maintenance tag that is the same as our {{ COI}} tag. Otherwise it is apparent that this article should be deleted in the other 5 languages, but this is not possibles because wikis have different policies, especially on notability. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Also adding that the article was deleted in an additional 5 wikis according to the history of the Wikidata item associated with the topic, (The wikis are frwiki, itwiki, ruwiki, simplewiki, and ukwiki.) in addition to that the page was deleted once here on enwiki according to there. I am sure that this article should be deleted as a clear example of "cross wiki spam" which was the reason behind the locking of all involved accounts. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 19:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Comment, also maybe worth noting that dewiki is also having a deletion discussion. Shaws username .  talk . 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks for that insight (and for linking de wiki). I knew they disappeared from the sidebar but wasn't sure how to track that. I'm not certain it has previously been deleted here, just moved all over the map for capitalization/transliteration reasons. Star Mississippi 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep delete. I don't see any cross-wiki spam. Many translations of the wiki article is not spam. The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. The article has enough sources. The article is of low quality, that's right. I recently corrected one author's error, replaced a false nonsensical source with a relevant one, see diff and Talk:Egov.Press#A strange reference. But low quality and errors are a reason for improvement, not for removal. Its sources IMHO prove that this article has sufficient WP:N.

    A source from my diff (in translation). Dana Burkhanova; Asylkhan Kushkimbayev (2022-05-08). "Improving Mechanisms of Interaction Between Civil Society and the State". Scientific Collection «InterConf» (in Kazakh) (107): 192–200. It seems, Dana Burkhanova and Asylkhan Kushkimbayev are serious authors. In this article Egov.Press is mentioned twice.

    À propos. It has been explained in Commons that there is no reason to quickly remove the files tagged by Star Mississippi as Speedy, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Astana 202302.jpg etc. This is similar to unjustified cross-wiki harassment of the author.

    — Yuri V. ( t• c) 23:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC). reply

    • I had missed the move to a deletion discussion so thanks for flagging @ Yuri V.. I do object to your characterization of it as cross wiki harassment. They are locked for spam and socking, the latter of which they have continued and the former you seem to acknowledge: The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. is promotion. I filed the SPI, but being caught promoting a site doesn't mean they're being harassed. Star Mississippi 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Collapsing redundant tangents, edging into personal attacks. Kindly take these elsewhere ( WP:ANI or talk pages, if absolutely necessary). The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: apart from the spam, the sources mostly just mention Egov.press and doesn't go WP:INDEPTH She was a fairy 09:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Roaring Twenties (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND r WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I found nothing. I really don't know why it was deproded. It is a bit of a puzzlement, since a notable band always makes an impact at any time in history, it is always recorded, even if its 100 years ago. It's not some writer, or a historian or playwright, may be so obscure that they are invisible. There is no coverage, no social media, nothing on fb, nothing on myspace, reliable source doesn't turn up anything, Gbooks has nothing, nothing in the open web or some fan wordpress site. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Comment The reason I deprodded this, as explained in the edit summary, was because my google searches were so filled with false positives that I was not, and still am not, confident that I would find true positives if they existed - especially given that the most obvious ways to exclude this hits about (other) bands that perform in the roaring twenties style would also exclude any hits about the band in question. Accordingly I felt deletion should not occur without the the subject being accorded the more in-depth look for sources that AfD provides over PROD. Additionally, the article claims coverage in sources that appear to be offline and which I don't have access to. In short, I don't know whether this band is notable, but I do know that it is impossible to tell either way from just a simple google search. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All these magazine are still available, Map in Scotland, God in the TV and Art Rocker here: [1] scope_creep Talk 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: There's seemingly 0 coverage of this band online. While offline sources may exist, they're hard to verify because no article title or author has been provided. Also, they're all from Spring 2006 and notability should be WP:SUSTAINED. Their discography was seemingly limited to a rare release EP and a couple compilation albums which doesn't bode well for notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kamienna Stara. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Zujkowszczyzna

Zujkowszczyzna (  | talk | history | 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. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony within Kamienna Stara. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kuderewszczyzna. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Brzozowy Borek

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka, but it is a part of a village rather a full one. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the village this is part of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not clear what the suggested Redirect target is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz It should redirect to Kuderewszczyzna. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

James Morton (baker)

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

Created by (possibly) someone who may have been the article subject himself or related to this person. Gained notoriety for appearing on The Great British Bake Off (series 3). Sure, he wrote cookbooks, and he reappeared once in a GBBO special, but do they make this person notable outside the series? I doubt that his (non-notable) medical career makes him meet the WP:GNG guideline or makes WP:BLP1E inapplicable. Matter was previously discussed in one past merger discussion and one discussion after merger/redirection was reverted. Regardless of notability, I'm not confident that the standalone article can hold on its own any longer. Should be (re-)redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#James Morton, whose content I derived took from the article with some improvements. George Ho ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
I don't think this subject meets any of these conditions, let alone all three. pburka ( talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
How about WP:BIO1E then? George Ho ( talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
That's an even less restrictive guideline. Which do you consider to be the 1E: his first GBBO, his second GBBO, or his career as an author? pburka ( talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
His GBBO debut, i.e. the third series, which aired in the US as the fifth season on PBS. His GBBO reappearance hasn't made much of an impact, and his career as a cookbook author is to me just resume-building. George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Pburka: What's your stance on this article so far? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't have one. pburka ( talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    What about my answer to your 1E question then? George Ho ( talk) 04:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I still don't think that BLP1E is applicable, since the subject had a substantial and well documented role in GBBO, and isn't a low-profile individual (he's a published author). Again, I have no position on the subject's notability, except that BLP1E isn't applicable. Any arguments to delete this page on those grounds are invalid. pburka ( talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a prolific and award winning author, a newspaper columnist, his television appearances, his brewing career, etc., seems to pass muster (and GNG). Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Subject looks notable and renowned to me. There appears to be quality relevant sources online about him. Meets the GNG requirements. Mevoelo ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per above two editors-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Would seem to have achieved notability as an author in addition to his TV appearances. Dunarc ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • George Ho, did you WP:MERGE content from James Morton (baker) to another page? If so, please add {{ merged-to|destination page name|date}} to Talk:James Morton (baker). Once you copy content from a page, we can't delete the original article for license/copyright reasons. (We could redirect the original article, however.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I really wish. I just derived content months before the bold redirect by another editor: diff of derivation (April 2021); diff of redirect (October 2021). George Ho ( talk) 06:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If your derivation constitutes a Derivative work, then we can't delete the source article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Donegall Quay

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Could possibly as an WP:ATD be merged/redirected to Belfast, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Not sure how one sentence would "unbalance" that huge article, but a little bit of a better look reveals the very obvious WP:ATD: List of parks and gardens in Belfast. Djflem ( talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems absolutely notable as an important piece of Belfast shipping history, even if it is just a park now: [2] [3] A lot of what I've found is historical material behind paywalls so the article is difficult to improve easily, but a Google Books search and Google Scholar search should at least put notability beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T· C 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Doesn't appear a proper Wikipedia:BEFORE was conducted, even if it "doesn't appear" notable, which is a weak nomination. Djflem ( talk) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    In fairness a simple search only brought up database type sites, but at the same time simple searches have gotten a lot worse over the past couple years I think. SportingFlyer T· C 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment perhaps I should have been clearer in my wording - by 'it doesn't appear' to be notable, I meant after looking for sources, I couldn't prove that it is. I am reluctant to say for sure whether something is notable or not, just myopinion, as it's amazing what sometimes others bring up. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So does your clearer wording mean you were unable to determine if it was notable or not, and therefore decided, because of your inability to determine, to create a AFD nomination to let other people do the deeper research to satisfy your curiosity? Not sure that's the purpose of AfD nominations. Djflem ( talk) 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Significant coverage is available in:
There are quite a few other books on the Internet Archive with references to Donegall Quay, these were just the first three that looked most substantial. Jfire ( talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yara Mustafa

Yara Mustafa (  | talk | history | 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 reliable and significant coverage on the actor herself. Also fails WP:NACTOR. popodameron ⁠ talk 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zapata Espinoza

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Atterbury Theatre

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

It exists, there are sources. However, not enough to meet WP:N from what I could find. Boleyn ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pavel Micheev

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

Notability is questionable, even the profile sites that list him seem to not have much if any information about him. WP:NHOOPS might apply to "played most minutes" but, unless there is already consensus on this, I'd argue playing most minutes isn't that statistically important. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ( Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 20:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails GNG. If sources from another language could be found and verified, then maybe. But as is, he's not notable. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present). Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Russian offensive

2024 Russian offensive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We haven't created articles so far for any russian offensives because most of the fighting comes from their initiative anyway. For this reason we have many articles to integrate anything that could be possibly included here such as Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024), Battle of Marinka (2022–2023), Eastern Ukraine campaign, Luhansk Oblast campaign. We don't need this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Yes it is true most fighting is of Russian initiative but many sources are noticing that Russia is conducting larger scale offensives than usual. Even after Avdiivka was captured Russia is still pushing and reports are they captured Lastochkyne and half of Sjeverne west of the city. They have also attacked in the south approaching Robotyne and in the Bakhmut sector they've entered Ivanivkse. The ISW reports that Russia is also going to conduct a large scale operation in Luhansk. The Kremlin also claimed they took back Krynky which while denied by the Ukrainians does show Russia is doing attacks there as well. Overall, it appears Russia is attacking across the front in an offensive larger than we've seen since 2022. I think its important for it to be recorded in a separate article just like many offensives in other wars. Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 23:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect My main problem with the article is the scope of locations it has. It specifically says the offensive is occuring in all of Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Luhansk Oblasts. None of the four listed sources specifically say that it is occuring in all four Oblasts. Rather, some just say a new offensive is occuring, while the ISW source says a "multi-axis offensive operation" is occuring. Until we find sources that make clear the connection of the offensives in all four Oblasts, I think that the offensive efforts in each individual Oblast can be handled in the various articles already created for them (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign; Luhansk Oblast campaign; or Dnieper campaign (2022–present)), specifically because it is debatable whether or not operationally significant gains have been made yet. I think it would make sense to, for now, redirect to Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present), which would talk about the offensive efforts in each Oblast, without necessarily making a connection between them and a coordinated offensive across all the four Oblasts. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I will note that the two new sources added still don't make the connection that the offensives in each individual Oblast correspond to a wider coordinated campaign in all four Oblasts. The NY Times sources doesn't even talk about offensives outside of Robytne, while the Yahoo source, which cites an ISW source, does not say that all the three separate offensive efforts listed correspond to a coordinated offensive campaign. Gödel2200 ( talk) 23:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect. Offensives usually do something in wars, like capture territory, political gain, etc. So far, this supposed offensive has done none of that. If there is an offensive that is notable, then it will get it's own article in due time, but for now WP:TOOSOON to have this page. Not to mention, this seems like a mishmash of sources saying "yep, there's an offensive" instead of detailed locations, timeframes, goals, etc. For now, news of an offensive can easily fit in their respective campaign articles. Jebiguess ( talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Gödel2200. The article portrays events in Donetsk and Kharkiv Oblasts collectively, as if they were a single offensive. In the absence of this framing in reliable sources, this looks like synthesis to me. SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"A Russian military analyst close to the defense industry, Ruslan Pukhov, wrote last week that the assault on Avdiivka was part of a wider Russian strategy of pressuring Ukrainian forces along the entire 600-mile front line with thrusts and probes to exhaust the enemy “by a thousand cuts.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/world/europe/russia-deaths-avdiivka-strategy.html Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The source specifically says that Russia is using "thrusts and probes" along the entire frontline. It does not say that Russia is engaging in offensive actions along the entire frontline (non-offensive thrusts and probes can occur), but rather efforts in "pressuring" Ukrainian forces. More importantly, even if the source said Russia is engaging in offensives along the entire frontline, this still doesn't mean there is a singular coordinated 2024 Russian offensive across all axes, as the title of the article implies. Also, I'm not sure we should even be using information from Russia In Global Affairs in the first place. It says its editorial board is headed by Sergei Karaganov, a well known pro war advocate, who has called for the use of nuclear weapons against European NATO states. Gödel2200 ( talk) 02:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't mind changing the title of the article to reflect an offensive that is not fully coordinated across the entire front. But it is still clear that Russian forces are attacking across the front in an effort to take advantage of delays in US aid as well as exhaustion and morale loss on the Ukrainian side. It definitely shouldn't be kept as it is right now called a stalemate as Russia in the past 2 months or so likely captured more Russian territory than during the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Also, just because Karaganov is pro-war does not mean we shouldn't cite him, for example the Russian MoD is cited in the main Russian invasion of Ukraine article. He clearly has links to the Russian military and his claims of offensive actions across the front are supported by the advances Russia is making across the front. Robotyne in the south, Marinka, Avdiivka, Ivanivske and Novomikhailovka in the east, and Krokhmalne and Kupiansk in the northeast. Even in Kherson the Russians are pushing as reports https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-18-2024 say. The Ukrainians were attacking in a similar way with thrusts and probes to test defenses and making less progress than this current offensive during the initial parts of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and it still deserved an article which I agree with. And offensives don't have to capture massive amounts of territory to be considered an offensive. Some may think its too soon to call this an offensive but I think it is clear from what's going on that an offensive attempt is going on at the very least on eastern and southern Ukraine. There will likely be more sources on this as time goes on. Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
You're right that just because Karaganov is pro-war doesn't mean we can't cite him. I just think we should be a bit more skeptical of analyses for which he is the head of the editorial board. The problem with the article isn't whether we think this is "similar" to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, or whether we think the actions by the Russians constitute an offensive; it's what the RS's say. And so far, the RS's state things differently than they did during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The RS's in the Ukrainain counteroffensive article consistently refer to the counteroffensive as a singular counteroffensive, not multiple counteroffensives. In contrast, the sources here do not say there is an offensive, but multiple offensive efforts, and do not state they are part of a larger coordinated one that is occuring throughout all the four Oblasts (as the article says). The sources we use here certainly do make it clear there are offensive efforts throughout Ukraine. But my argument is that we don't need to make separate articles for each offensive effort, as they can be sufficiently handled in the various articles we already have (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign, Luhansk Oblast campaign, etc.,). Gödel2200 ( talk) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Star Mississippi 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

KCYM-LD

KCYM-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 WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Haim Mahat

Haim Mahat (  | talk | history | 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 reliable sourcing on this artist to substantiate their notability for inclusion. An online BEFORE finds only his own website, social media a few auction database listings, but none of the significant coverage that we would usually find for a notable artist. Does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is sourced to his own website, and the database listings; the one offline reference can not be found in a Google search, nor on the website itself. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep please note Haaretz source, Mark Reich, Yoram (2016). "Wunder Kid". Haaretz is a noted RS; the lack of availability of sources in English online does not mean there are no sources. (On the contrary as mentioned above). Homerethegreat ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand what you are saying, however because it is the only reliable source, the content still needs to be verified per WP:V. Also to meet NARTIST and GNG we need more than just that source. Netherzone ( talk) 23:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
It is possible to put a - more citations needed for verifications template - instead of an AFD. (I apologize for the time it takes me to respond). Homerethegreat ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The AfD will run its course, however you can link to reliable sources here. His own website is used as a citation 6 times; ArtMutual is an auction database/user submitted content (primary, not independent); ArtNet (used twice) is an auction database/user submitted content (primary, not independent) - his paints sell at auction for a few hundred dollars; פחות מאלף (Under1000) is a blog/user-submitted social media art selling site (primary, not independent). So whatever you may find could be useful if it is verifiable, independent and a reliable source.
I can't find a trace of the Haaretz source online whether I search in English or Hebrew or on the Internet archive Wayback machine; I even tried searching under the author's name in both Hebrew and English. The thing is even if it could be verified, it's not enough to met NARTIST nor GNG. However, it seems pretty clear that he is not notable by Wikipedia criteria. I'm not finding any notable exhibitions, reviews, collections, art historical articles or books, etc. Netherzone ( talk) 17:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:ARTIST and the WP:GNG. This one article that is claimed to be on him is not linked on Enwiki and Hewiki. It can't be found on the Haaretz site. Maybe it appeared in Ha-Ir, the regional newspaper of Haaretz for the Tel Aviv region? Some great journalism there, yet unfortunately not online. Also otherwise I found close to nothing. The son is an actor, has a beautiful apartment that was covered in Ynet [i.e. Yediot], where Haim's paintings are on the wall. Surprise surprise and passing mention. That's about it. I did search the national newspaper archives for Israel as well. These are far from complete but we work by RS and V. gidonb ( talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lipcon, Margulies, and Winkleman

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the firm itself. Similar to many articles about lawyers, the problem is that notability for the firm is not inherited from coverage about lawsuits it was a part of, or from quotes about other topics attributed to the firm's lawyers. ~ A412 talk! 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SVNS. and to any other articles that are appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of World Rugby Sevens Series broadcasters

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as it is not discussed as a group within secondary sources. In addition, several of the entries are unsourced. Let'srun ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep (software)

Yep (software) (  | talk | history | 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 software article has zero references to establish notability. Appears to be written like a press release. After searching, unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the software itself. Article was PROD on 19 January 2023, then self-reverted 23 January 2023. JoeNMLC ( talk) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. - Master of Hedgehogs ( converse) ( hate that hedgehog!) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete does not look notable to me. Article does not to show adequate sourcing and notability. Mevoelo ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Encoded Talk to me! 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: indeed, written like a press release. the sourcing used is reviews and that doesn't qualify as reliable sourcing. it's quite hard to find sourcing apart from those, anyway. She was a fairy 09:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Beretta 9000

Beretta 9000 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG. We know that this pistol exists but it's not likely notable. It was easier to find mentions in fiction that it is to find published works that verify the facts in the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IDN Media. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IDN App

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

Questionable notability, merge with IDN Media? IgelRM ( talk) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge The article was written separately on Indonesian Wikipedia, so I translated it as such. However, I agree with the merge as it is more appropriate in this case. — Zenica87 ( talk) 08:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for commenting author, understandable. IgelRM ( talk) 22:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jason Schmidt (photographer)

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Successful career for notable projects, but notability is not inherited. No suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His website's about page conveniently lists a bunch of significant coverage.
Jfire ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The references listed above seem to establish that he is an important photographer in his own right (not just by association with famous subjects he has photographed). There are at least three reputably published books of his work – which is also widely published in periodicals, exhibited and collected. As such, the article seems like one that should be kept and improved (perhaps by adding some of the above refs). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Agree with above points that the references listed suggest notability and the article could easily be improved. Editing84 ( talk) 08:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Tanya Heaslip

Tanya Heaslip (  | talk | history | 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 author. Lacks independent coverage. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS  💬 13:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Elena Palmer

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

Unnotable. A BEFORE search only shown her self-published profiles. Additionally, her only claim to notability, a book which criticized Peter III, has no sources documenting it. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - before this article was nominated for deletion, a source from Welt in the External links section references the book: Kiel bekommt ein Denkmal für den umstrittenen Zaren Peter III. (21.02.2014) "„Peter III war ein progressiver Herrscher, der durch wirtschaftliche und soziale Reformen das feudale Russland aus seiner mittelalterlicher Starre in die Moderne bringen wollte“, sagt die Journalistin Elena Palmer. Am Rande: Auf Basis ihres Buches „Peter III." (Google translate: "“Peter III was a progressive ruler who wanted to bring feudal Russia out of its medieval rigidity into the modern age through economic and social reforms,” says journalist Elena Palmer. By the way: Based on her book “Peter III."). There also appears to be a source in sh:z about Palmer and her work/book: Wer war Peter III. wirklich? (07.06.2013) but this is subscription/payment-blocked. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there is also a section on the article talk page opened in 2020 with a list of suggested sources, including Volksstimme (17.06.2014), mentioning "Um diese jüngste Bewertung des Zaren aus Kiel hat sich vor allem die Autorin Elena Palmer mit ihrem Buch "Peter III. Der Prinz von Holstein" verdient gemacht." (Google translate: The author Elena Palmer made a great contribution to this latest assessment of the Tsar from Kiel with her book “Peter III. The Prince of Holstein”. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: as non-notable at this time. Maybe in the future. Fails GNG. Nirva20 ( talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete google news search comes up with namesakes and no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mexican Summer. Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Anthology Editions

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

Subject fails NCORP. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Typically, publishers of thought are not themselves the subject of other's thoughts. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New York. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mexican Summer, no coverage besides initial press release and trivial mentions as publisher. Anthology Recordings might be a better redirect target, but it doesn't seem independently notable either. ~ A412 talk! 18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Mexican Summer. The previous redirect attempt was absurd. The target, Anthology Recordings, had a far worse WP:NCCORP deficiency, being supported by only one primary ref. There should be a proper merge to the parent ( Mexican Summer) rather than a WP:BLAR-out of content. Dl2000 ( talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. In a cursory search, did not find any other significant coverage about the publisher independent from the books. If the article needed to exist as a list to house content related to books that would not otherwise warrant their own page, we could entertain that, but not seeing much written about each book. czar 18:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Ed Edwards as a viable ATD. Given veracity concerns, the history is not preserved Star Mississippi 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Stealing Elvis

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

Advertorialized article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for and/or won awards at minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- we're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry film festival that exists on earth. But the referencing here is more than half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left for media coverage is a couple of hits in small weekly community hyperlocals that aren't widely-distributed enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're the only media coverage this has.
As I don't have access to archives of British media to determine whether the film had stronger coverage a decade ago than it's citing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this, and the blatant advertorialism present in the article means it would have to be substantially rewritten regardless. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ed Edwards, where it is mentioned; and merge whatever material will help improve the page.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unfortunately, a non-notable independent film that does not qualify for an article. Oliver Phile ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article so that it could be better judged, as the prior version was kind of hodge podge. I also tried finding sourcing - I found actual links to a few of the things mentioned, but not much. What I did find doesn't really give any indication that there are more sources out there. I think that what's in the article - or at least referenced - is all that existed. I even tried using the Wayback Machine on the PLECTRUM website and had zero luck.
Now as far as the pre-existing sourcing in the article goes, its usability is suspect because of one of the edited quotes in the reception section, the one sourced to the Camden New Journal. It comes across as being about the overall production company rather than the film. If the best you can do from an article (to establish notability) is one line that, even after being edited, still doesn't cover the film in question it should not be considered usable unless we could verify that the article in question discusses the film in any sort of depth. As a result that makes all of the other sources in the article questionable because that makes me wonder how those were actually written up in the actual source.
This in turn makes me wonder about the overall truthfulness of the article. I don't think that the person who wrote it was lying exactly, but it does give off the impression that they engaged in WP:PUFFERY. This in turn makes the director's article highly suspect as well and I'd recommend reviewing that and generally anything related to him in order to see if it's a case of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Offhand a quick look at the article in its current state - as well as for The Promoter (2013 film) - give off the impression that neither the film nor the director are notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd nominate it myself, but I'm so sporadically on Wikipedia nowadays due to work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Carrie Keller-Lynn

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

Blatant WP:BLP1E. Sources are weak, either not third-party (itrek) or sourced to a "site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books." (Subject is not a book, nor an author of a book.) Brazilian Forum source, whether RS or not, has only eight sentences in the article which are about Keller-Lynn, even broadly considered. Searching found no better sources. Note: I have edited the article since filing the AfD in two ways: removed an unsourced claim that the subject is American-Israeli", and remove a claim that a photo was deleted from a website, which was both not in the given source and provably false, as I indicated on the talk page. This claim had been being used to justify a fair-use basis for hosting a copyrighted photo, so I removed the photo itself from the article. Further: I have now removed claims sourced to a self-published source added after the start of the AfD, in violation of WP:BLPSPS -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST by a country mile. The irony is that often bios of journalists are puffery and apparently self-written. This article gives the opposite impression. That said, we have an article here that totally fails to show reliable sourcing such as to satisfy the stringent requirements of the guideline. A WP:MILL writer albeit one who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A regular person at work. Nothing that makes her stand out from the rest of the journalists. Fails JOURNALIST and even the GNG. gidonb ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom. also Fails WP:JOURNALIST Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability requirements. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Treamis World School

Treamis World 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)

Cannot find any reliable sources indicating notability of this school. Articles found have been about students or brief passing mentions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Redmi 6A

Redmi 6A (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No sources except a listing on a web site. North8000 ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Peckham, James (2018-11-09). "Hands on: Xiaomi Redmi 6A review. A lot for a little". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The Xiaomi Redmi 6A is an affordable phone, and you'll instantly recognize that as soon as you pick it up in your hand. Considering its price, we found the Xiaomi Redmi 6A to feel quite premium in hand, with a metal effect on the rear of the device that's brushed to make it feel that bit more authentic. ... The Xiaomi Redmi 6A isn't going to floor you with its performance or features, but everything here seems to work well. Considering the price, you'll likely be happy with what the Redmia 6A can do and it keeps pace with other budget alternatives."

    2. Arora, Karanveer Singh (2019-01-21). "Xiaomi Redmi 6A Review: Best budget smartphone?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "Redmi 6A is a capable smartphone for the price. At the price, it delivers on performance, specifications, and is a compact and easy to use smartphone. However, the phone does have its fair share of cons like low-light camera performance, no fingerprint sensor and using the smartphone outside under direct sunlight. For under Rs 7,000 this is not a bad option, though Realme C1 will give tough competition to the phone as well."

    3. Mukherjee, Amritanshu (2018-09-24). "Redmi 6A review: Xiaomi's feature-loaded Aam Aadmi' smartphone". Deccan Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "The Redmi 6A is a pretty good deal if you are hunting for a smartphone that won’t bother your wallet. For entry-level smartphone users, the 6A is a considerable upgrade over the Redmi 5A, especially with a bigger display and a more powerful chipset. As a secondary device, it can easily go through the donkey-work of handling lots of calls and messages. MIUI single-handedly holds a lot of value for the Redmi 6A with loads of features. At this price, the competition is mostly offering Android Go devices with weaker specifications but the promise of faster updates to the latest version of Android. However, the Redmi 6A is a quality product that aims to offer a satisfactory smartphone experience even for a measly price tag. And for that reason alone, the Redmi 6A earns our recommendation."

    4. "Xiaomi Redmi 6A vs Redmi 5A: Specifications and features compared". The Indian Express. 2018-06-14. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "Xiaomi Redmi 6A has been launched in China. The successor to Redmi 5A, which is priced starting at Rs 5,999 in India, comes with a FullView 18:9 aspect ratio display, an updated processor and Face Unlock feature. The budget phone was unveiled alongside the Redmi 6. As of now, Xiaomi has not officially confirmed whether the devices will be available in India."

    5. Dutta, Meghna (2018-09-08). "Redmi 6A vs Redmi 5A: Specifications comparison". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "The new Redmi 6A is the cheapest model from the lot which has been launched at an introductory price starting at Rs 5,999 for the 2GB RAM/16GB storage model. Xiaomi overhauled a few aspects on the Redmi 6A, like the design, mobile platform, rear camera arrangement and a taller display with higher resolution compared to the Redmi 5A. The Redmi 6A smartphone now boasts a 5.45-inch HD+ 18:9 display and a MediaTek chipset instead of Qualcomm found on the Redmi 5A. Battery capacity on the new Redmi smartphone remains the same at 3,000mAh. Lets dive deeper into the major changes Xiaomi has made on Redmi 6A as compared to its predecessor, the Redmi 5A."

    6. Sang, Augustine (2018-08-28). "Tech Break: The Redmi 6A is not your average entry level phone". Daily Nation. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The Xiaomi Redmi 6A may be entry level but it certainly doesn’t feel like it. I loved its build quality and even though the body is made of plastic, it just felt comfortable due to its curved edges. It's quite light as well.Xiaomi also did a great job with the design, especially on the front side.But we don’t buy smartphones just for their looks only. Performance matters more. I played around for a few days with the phone and my conclusion is that it’s exactly what you would expect from a modern budget smartphone with a number of bonuses."

    7. Bhagat, Hitesh Raj (2018-10-26). "Redmi 6 & 6A review: Good camera, efficient processor". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The camera on the Redmi 6 is surprisingly good for the asking price. You get a portrait mode (because of the 5MP depth sensor), manual mode, multiple scene modes, 1080p video, slo-motion video, EIS for video and built in time lapse. The 6A drops the portrait mode and slowmotion but is otherwise mostly the same. We got some nice results in daylight with good dynamic range and colour. You also get a beautify mode (configurable) for the front camera and generally pleasing photos in good lighting. Battery life is about a full day for most users."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Redmi 6A to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The sources identified above seem sufficient, I think we have notability. I couldn't find anything, but these are good! Oaktree b ( talk) 15:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nurul Fikri Boarding School

Nurul Fikri Boarding 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)

The boarding school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:NORG. Searches show that the school existed, but nothing notable about the school has been shown. Some news articles that are cited in id-wiki showed how some students of this school survived a tsunami in Sunda Strait in 2018, but that didn't show any notability to the school. Other references in id-wiki showed the school won some awards but that didn't confer any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Islam, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There is not much to go on in the article. No sources, and apparent low enrollment. However there are books mentions. The only one I could track down to start with is [11], which talks about "Sekolah Islam' schools and cites this school as one of two examples (although there is a long note about why this school is a Sekolah Islam and not a pesentrans). It says, inter alia, Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School [is] known for producing top students who ace the national exams and win trophies in national and international competitions (see Figure 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows a trophy cabinet but it is not clear if this is their cabinet or that of the other school visited. There is more about high quality teachers, it is run by school management, and has a non traditional currciulum. The book doesn't say how big the school is, but I would put this down as one reliable secondary source that appears independent of the subject. We need multiple for GNG, but despite the parlous state of the page, I don't think this is a clear delete. I'll keep looking. Also please note the name used in this book "Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri" would be an alternative and search with or without "boarding". Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Another ref:
Salmon, Yoseph; Saefudin, Didin; Mujahidin, Endin; Husaini, Adian (8 February 2024). "Pengembangan Kurikulum Sekolah Islam Terpadu Tingkat SMP di Pondok Pesantren (Studi Lapangan pada Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten)". Jurnal Global Ilmiah. 1 (6): 321–324. doi: 10.55324/jgi.v1i6.50.
This one is about "Development of the Integrated Islamic School Curriculum at the Junior High School at the Islamic Boarding School (Field Study at the Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten Islamic Boarding School)". There are a lot of these, in fact. Scholar shows at least 10 such references I could post. It seems that a lot of people are looking at this school as an exemplar of islamic boarding schools and curricula. But there is also a question of whether there is some kind of promotion for this, and I note that few of the papers have any citations at all, and some are just preprints. Writing a paper is one thing, but not all papers are born equal. The school website tells me they have nearly 1000 pupils, and they also have a large staff. The various papers speak highly of the school, and even taking into account my caution regarding lack of citations of these, their own alumni pages and other pages seem to bear this out. If I was better versed in the culture and background I might have a stronger view, but on the basis of the evidence here, it is a large school, open for 25 years, studied in academic papers, mentioned in books and newspaper reports. It looks like a keep to me. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In contrast to the paucity of material on many schools put up in AfD this one does have coverage enough to satisfy the GNG. It seems to have been used as a model for research. Another paper is here [12] (assuming it's this school) same name but identifies only the province, not an exact location. Another here: [13]. Further coverage: [14] and here. [15] Rupples ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Re strike through: having read through this paper, I don't think it's of a standard to contribute to notability. Rupples ( talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Robin (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since January 2023

Citations on other language pages do not appear to support notability either. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Sweden, Canada, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Television series for national television. AlexandraAVX had already added a good secondary source. I've added a couple of other Swedish articles, and I think this lives up to our requirements. / Julle ( talk) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Julle's reasoning. The Dagens Nyheter source looks solid: a national newspaper with an article called "Robin hopes to become hip in the whole world". The Expressen article is called "Prized friends got drunk. But now Magnus figures are child-friendly" — this is referring to Carlsson's next series for children, comparing it to the adult-oriented Robin. This series got national attention. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there's now three sources in Swedish national newspapers that discuss the subject, it definitely seems to meet GNG to me at this point. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per improvements made since nom. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Christian heresies

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

Many Christian denominations (Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy) condemn every different religious belief/doctrine that doesn't align with theirs as "heresy". We would have to compile a list of every possible religious belief/doctrine for this list to ever be complete. – Howard 🌽33 13:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Howard 🌽33 13:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep. The article clearly defines its criteria for inclusion: beliefs that have been specifically condemned as heretical by one or more Christian churches, a reasonably limited set. Empirically, it doesn't seem to be having the problem you're worried about, and instead it's serving its purpose perfectly well as a list of topics like Arianism and Gnosticism.— Moriwen ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So “heresies” in this case only apply to those religious beliefs which have been verbally condemned by mainstream Christian denominations? – Howard 🌽33 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    That seems to be what the page says:
    > This is a list of all Christian heresies that have been condemned by one or more Christian churches. — Moriwen ( talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean I don't know, I thought a heresy didn't need to be vocally condemned as such by a church. – Howard 🌽33 00:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Howardcorn33, I don't think a heresy "needs to be vocally condemned as such by a church" but that is what is required for a heresy to be listed in this article. Your deletion rationale implies there is a problem with this article being "complete" but by having a specified requirement for inclusion, this problem is reduced. For example, many lists we have of people require that there be an article about them on Wikipedia (and other limiting factors like country, medium, etc.). If, for example, we had a list of just "Actors" which could include anyone who identifies as an actor, then that would be impossible to create and maintain and would be unencyclopedic. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Lists. Shaws username .  talk . 17:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the list has a well-founded and sharply-delimited inclusion criterion, and there are many reliable sources for membership of the list. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Easily satisfies WP:NLIST in that heresies as defined here have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources at great, great length. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category:Heresy shows there are other such things, each religion having them. There are references including to places like https://www.britannica.com/topic/monophysite which calls it "heresy of the Monophysites". Dream Focus 21:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The list of heresies in the Catholic Church is a good list of heresies condemned by the Catholic Church, but it is not possible to include heresies condemned by other churches in that list. That is why this list was created. Your issue likely isn't here as most entries end in "-ism," signifying specific theological deviations from mainline Christianity. EXANXC ( talk) 08:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: It seems this article only counts heresies as religious beliefs which are vocally condemned by a particular Christian church. I was considering on a different definition of heresy, whereby any religious belief which contradicts an official church teaching is a heresy, regardless of whether the church vocally condemns it as such.
Perhaps we should change the name of the article then to something like "List of religious beliefs considered heretical by various Christian churches" (not the shortest title i know) so we can be more clear about this? Because otherwise it seems like wikipedia itself is personally condemning these beliefs as heretical by including them in the list. – Howard 🌽33 00:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
This discussion would be just perfect for the article talk page. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Alright then, I retract my call to delete the article in that case. – Howard 🌽33 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per research/sourcing found during nomination. Nomination was also withdrawn, but this ran the full time so opting for the keep vs. NW Star Mississippi 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Stephen Holland (artist)

Stephen Holland (artist) (  | talk | history | 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:NARTIST. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Boxing, and Olympics. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NARTIST. Only one source is listed, which appears to be a broken link, nor was it used to back up any of the article content. I did have a quick search for other potential references online but am not seeing anything useful. Editing84 ( talk) 11:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per sources like [16] [17] (ProQuest) and [18] (newspaperarchive) Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I was about to !vote delete on this but did a deeper dive into what might be found online. I found two notable museum collections which puts him over the bar for WP:NARTIST. I added these to the article. There were some other things online which might meet GNG (haven't yet looked at what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has found). But I think this is a case of a poorly written, formatted and sourced stub on a notable niche artist. It can be improved to meet WP standards, I think. Netherzone ( talk) 17:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment Gråbergs Gråa Sång I can't see any of those sources but recent edits have added details of work in public collections so WP:NARTIST would seem to be achieved and I'm happy for someone to close this discussion. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Try accessing the databases first via WP-library, then try the links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Theroadislong, I was able to find several long in-depth articles on him online, but haven't added them to the article yet, but I will. This sort of art is not my cup of tea, but it does seem clear that he is notable. Netherzone ( talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Netherzone and other interested, feel free to dig into the stuff here: [19] too, it was posted by his wife. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - From my own research on the subject, he seems notable. However, the way in which it was written does not show notability. I think more work should be done on the article to make it standard for Wikipedia. Mevoelo ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- First of all the sources already in the article are sufficient to pass GNG. Secondly the guy has paintings in the National Gallery of Art and the National Portrait Gallery, which in itself is sufficient to satisy WP:NARTIST. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree as the nominator, the article as it now stands passes WP:NARTIST and this discussion can be closed. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:BEFORE please. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ARM Cortex-A9 with history preserved if someone wants to merge. Viable ATD and no need to relist Star Mississippi 15:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

S5P4418

S5P4418 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan page, unsourced, containing uniquely datasheet specifications. No evidence of notability. Broc ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable, and no sources used at all. Editing84 ( talk) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sławno, Podlaskie Voivodeship per discussion, albeit no !vote for one. Star Mississippi 14:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kaszuba, Podlaskie Voivodeship

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Sławno. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Question - @ Ilawa-Kataka:, have you considered a merge or redirect to Sławno, Podlaskie Voivodeship as an WP:ATD? ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng I am absolutely appalled that I did not think of deletion alternatives—though I am experienced with Wiktionary, I have only edited Wikipedia recently. However, I think it may be better as a redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as it is legally distinct from Sławno, and which census area(s) include Kaszuba or where it even is, is unclear (sources consistently locate it at some empty fields, and there are no addresses for Kaszuba). Is there a way I could retract my AfDs and just do that, and would that be appropriate? Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think, since there are not yet any !votes, you can retract. I'd ask Liz who recently relisted this discussion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If possible, redirect/merge > deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pacific Gateway

Pacific Gateway (  | talk | history | 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. I see various governmental documents but not enough independent secondary sources to show that could be added to the page to show how it meets the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete As per JMWt points- no references used at all, and doesn't have the potential sources to be deemed notable. Editing84 ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Detachments (British band)

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I made a major overhaul of the article and added several references. There are plenty of reliable sources about the band out there, and more work can be done, but I have made a start. Deleting the article seems extreme. If people really don't think the band itself is notable, then what about renaming the article to "Bastian Marshal" (the vocalist and seemingly "leader" of the band)? And then making it about his work in general with this band and his other work as well, as it seems he has had a lot of involvement with music apart from just this specific band. Vontheri ( talk) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, and, if it wasn't obvious, my vote is for keep. Vontheri ( talk) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mecha Love

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

This is borderline, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG / WP:GNG. Reaching number 20 on a non-notable chart and some coverage doesn't quite make it. Suitable WP:ATD could be merge/redirect to album or artist, but I am not sure if the title is unambiguous enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Simon Wakelin

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. It could merge/redirect to his wife, Tia Carrere, but I am not convinced it would be appropriate. Claims to notability seem to be be married to and working with and on notable people and projects, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

National Housing Conference

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the generic name makes searching difficult. Google Scholar and Google Books do show fairly regular references to the NHC in academic work, and occasionally studies they have sponsored or hosted are cited. There is not a ton of in-depth coverage of the organization, but there is some, especially with regards to their 1931 founding, work in the 30s, and their founder, Mary Simkhovitch ( example and especially example 2). — Ganesha811 ( talk) 02:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- There are plenty of sources under the former name of National Public Housing Conference. Here's a findsources for that so you can see what I mean:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Central and Adams ( talk) 10:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Brilliant Labs

Brilliant Labs (  | talk | history | 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 WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Like I said elsewhere, I added categories to it and linked to it elsewhere on Wikipedia. That should satisfy two criticisms.
Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the three sources are major outlets. It's not quite scientific, but that seems like it establishes a reasonable basis for being notable. It's also supported by major investors, although I didn't add those in - not yet, anyway. I'm debating in my mind how to do it without being promotional.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ar-glasses-multimodal-ai-nets-140019767.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20inception%20in%202019,at%20Y%20Combinator%3B%20and%20others. Rjohnson1980 ( talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Both The Verge and Axios weren't really about the company but the Forbes and South China Morning Post pieces are good and seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. Editing84 ( talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references provided to date all rely entirely on interviews/quotes from company officials and other information provided by the company. HighKing ++ 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jhalra Jama Masjid

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

Unable to find sources that show that this mosque meets WP:GNG. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and Uttar Pradesh. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are two sources and neither have any coverage on the title. One of the source indiastan.com shows a location of different mosque with unnamed street address. Fails WP:N and per nom fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 13:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Fram ( talk) 08:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗ plicit 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Akari Saho

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

Could possibly merge/redirect to Up Up Girls Kakko Kari but it could unbalance that article. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it would make more sense if all members of the group (current and former) had at least a small bio section, if it were to be merged. Then maybe it would be slightly unbalanced but not so terribly much. It wouldn't be that hard to at least include their basic info and other accomplishments, because a lot of them have appeared in various media before, which could fill out a general "members" section.
Just my two cents as a fan of Akari and the group, but not really an active editor.
Yamakirisei ( talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Enough coverage to establish notability within the article. Clearly a notable person, for example, could quickly find two pieces of coverage about her recently getting a black belt in karate [22] [23] [24]. Scant evidence of a WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources not just English. DCsansei ( talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree there does not seem to be WP:BEFORE ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:SIGCOV in Japanese media. She was a fairy 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ihor Lachenkov

Ihor Lachenkov (  | talk | history | 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 blogger. Кронас ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This is a close one. The best sources I could find are probably [25] and [26] which are pretty basic. Most other sources are interviews or passing mentions. On the other hand, even a passing mention in The New York Times is pretty impressive for a Ukrainian blogger. He is also the most popular news blogger for young Ukrainians according to a UN sponsored study. Having an article on him improves Wikipedia. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Next time, please include a more substantial deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comments and question: the Uk article looks substantial. Can the text and cites be translated and added? Bearian ( talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: lots of sourcing is written in ukrainian, but per Eluchil404 there is sufficient sourcing that relatively meets notability. She was a fairy 09:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Javier Pinto

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

fails WP:GNG B-Factor ( talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very newly created article. If this is deleted as a Soft Deletion, it will be restored quickly. So, let's try relisting it for a few more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to establish notability for Pinto or really any coverage at all of him or his works. I found some general primary source hits and some junk hits, but nothing that would actually be usable for notability purposes. This seems to be your run-of-the-mill self-publishing creative who has not gained any mainstream attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pardi (lecturer)

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

Do not meet WP:GNG. B-Factor ( talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There are five sources I haven't included that could prove he's notable. It's just that I'm feeling lazy at this moment, maybe could u move it to draft first instead of immediately deleting it? SoilMineo39 ( talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
SoilMineo39, if you can demonstrate notability, then now is the time to do so. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:BIO. Not yet notable, but best of luck to him with his commendable charity work. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF. The sources listed in the article have passing mentions, but little more; I also have concerns about the reliability of the publication venues. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Ignacio

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

Can't see how this person is notable. Has won some routine competitions. The article suggests he's won big international tournaments, but simply hasn't. Didn't have the sort of coverage to meet WP:GNG in my WP:BEFORE Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BlinqIO

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

Sourcing both current and online is either WP:PRIMARY (press releases) or non- WP:RELIABLE pubs. TLA tlak 07:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Just launched in Sep. 2023. I cannot find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and none of the cited sources contribute to notability. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kanika Dewan

Kanika Dewan (  | talk | history | 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, inflated promotional User4edits ( talk) 06:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep... Looks fine. More than a trivial mention in sources. Meets general notability, though the article could do with adjusting prose and replacing some references. Whispyhistory ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A more solid deletion rationale would have been welcome. Right now, we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article is mostly promo, with lots of non-notable awards listed, website refs, etc. 128.252.172.14 ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - based on a review of sources in the article and a search for sources, there does not seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Multiple sources also seem promotional; for example, Kanika Dewan: Meet the diva who designed floors of IGI's T3 terminal (Economic Times, 2013) is interview-based and seems to be promoting the business she 'vertically integrated' with her family's mining company, e.g. to "capitalise on the exclusive availability of exotic marbles and granite." Girl power (India Today, 2010) is primarily interview-based. Guinness World Record holder Kanika Dewan has done projects for Sultan of Oman, for Roman Abramovich, airports in India (American Bazaar, 2014) is an interview that begins with a brief summary overview of several projects. Larger than life (Khaleej Times, 2011) is about the Guiness World Record for the marble mosaic portrait, with quotes and recollections from Dewan. 'Corruption, contract enforcement major hurdles for ease of business' (Business Standard, 2016) is a report on a "discussion round in a session titled ‘India Means Business’, at the India Economic Summit, jointly organised by CII and World Economic Forum" that briefly covers what she discussed about corruption. 4 Indians make it to World Economic Forum global leaders list (Business Today, 2016) is a mention of her being listed without specific detail, and the Economic Times announcement is similar. In the non-independent source of Dewan's alma mater's Wharton Magazine, Dewan is quoted in 2019 saying "my zero tolerance to corruption in India finally paid off and I earned a reputation for whistle-blowing against bribery, within my industry, on a national level" but I have not otherwise found support for article content that describes Dewan as a campaigner against corruption. Overall, this seems WP:TOOSOON to develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of course, if an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, they are free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Iridium 77

Iridium 77 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this single satellite in the Iridium cluster - it hasn't received independent coverage of any kind. No other satellite has an article except for Iridium 33 (which was destroyed in a well-documented satellite collision), and I don't see why this one should either. I'm not really sure if it should be redirected or converted to a disambiguation page or straight-up deleted. Kdroo ( talk) 05:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Does not meet GNC criteria. Redirection is not the optimal solution. Cinadon 36 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Silvaco

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

100% of references are press releases, i.e., then don't ensure notability per our standards - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [29] ~ A412 talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep, found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Henry C. Gonzalez

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

Unnotable mayor in a relatively smaller city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. He received some coverage upon his death and for his attempted assassination in 1999, but that does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCRIME. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete the LA Times obit is good enough coverage so he's closer to a keep than most of these, but we're not there yet, and I can't find anything else that would push him over the edge. SportingFlyer T· C 12:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire ( talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Trilby (1912 film)

Trilby (1912 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cronals ( talk) 04:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Keep,some editor developed the article.any one can close discussion.

Nomination withdrawn.Any one can close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after substantial work was done on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Vipers

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

Looks like an obscure rock band that couldn't secure a record contract or made an album. Not much to them with their brief existence. GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS referencing them, nothing in newspapers.com, proquest, or newspaperarchive.com for anything thats plausibly them although it might have been buried by other groups with the same name and rugby teams. Shaws username .  talk . 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The new sources are good and meet notability. Clearly I just failed miserably when I looked for sources, ResonantDistortion and Guliolopez have done a really good job adding sources. Shaws username .  talk . 18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sufficient WP:V sourcing has been added to the article since AfD to meet WP:NBAND. This includes WP:NBAND#12 featured significantly on a national radio station, and WP:NBAND#1, with a reliable independent source from Hot Press stating "We wrote about The Vipers regularly in Hot Press" even if these articles are not all available online due to it being >40 years ago. Also - The Vipers headlined a show above a little known band called U2 - how is that not notable? Resonant Distortion 18:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In my own WP:BEFORE I found and, together with ResonantDistortion have added, a number of sources which would appear to contribute to a WP:GNG claim. While the subject band did not appear to have chart success, to the extent that "single or album on any country's national music chart" or "record certified gold or higher" of WP:NBAND are not met, there does appear to be enough coverage to warrant retention on SIGCOV grounds. Certainly the coverage in music journalism sources (like Hot Press) and general news sources (like the Irish Independent) are contributory. In all honesty, some of the coverage is somewhat "passing" in nature, and I was therefore minded to frame my recommendation as a weak keep. I can't support outright deletion however... Guliolopez ( talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of television programmes broadcast by CITV

List of television programmes broadcast by CITV (  | talk | history | 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 NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a TV guide or list of former station programming.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comic Yuri Hime#Serialized works. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Asumi-chan is Interested in Lesbian Brothels!

Asumi-chan is Interested in Lesbian Brothels! (  | talk | history | 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 GNG. Sources in article are database records, primary, name mentions. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Comic Yuri Hime as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 07:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are sources that can be found to prove its notability. SimonLagann ( talk) 14:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Draftify article could use more work to prove its notability. SimonLagann ( talk) 14:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    You initially said there are sources, if that is still the case can you please provide them? Per WP:NEXIST if sources exist then the article should be kept. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I searched for sources in English and Japanese and found them rather unsatisfactory. That's why I changed my mind on it. There was an article on AnimeCorner, but it wasn't about the series, it was about manga that the author of the article began reading in 2023. There was another one on Livedoor, but it was a list article about yuri series the author recommends. SimonLagann ( talk) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Comic Yuri Hime#Serialized works; I don't think this manga meets WP:NBOOK just yet. Link20XX ( talk) 04:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cornell 100+ MPG Team

Cornell 100+ MPG Team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Briefly entered a competition and got a smattering of coverage for it [32], but imo was a bit of a flash-in-the pan and there isn't enough coverage here to establish encyclopedic notability. [Should note that I attend Cornell, but have no connection to this project team] Eddie891 Talk Work 03:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Salem Urban Development Authority

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

The information in this article is already at Salem metropolitan area (India) but the creator objects to a redirect there so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra ( talk) 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So, kindly go through it, Metropolitan Area & Metropolitan Development Authority is different from each other.

Yes they are different from each other, but that does not mean that we need a separate article about each one. The information about this topic is already included in the article about the metropolitan area, so this is a WP:CFORK. Mccapra ( talk) 09:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I, thought, Same were followed in the articles that, I have mentioned above. In those articles too, contains more or less same informations. May I, know, is there any rules for such articles for existing, meanwhile, not for this one. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The rule is we don’t fork content, so if information is already in one article we don’t recreate it in another. The only reason to split info out from an existing article is to significantly expand it, which this one doesn’t. Otherwise we just create a redirect so anyone searching for information finds it easily. Mccapra ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
So, instead of nominating for deletion, you can tag the article as "need improvement". That may help to develop articles with additional informations. Visitors also can add some information with thier knowledge. But, still, I can't understand, what additional contents you had seen in the articles like Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Chennai Metropolitan Area. Can you explain is there any such special rules. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just another Municipal Development Authority.
There are 100 municipal corporations, 2100 Nagar Panchayats, and 1500 municipal councils in India 1
User4edits ( talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Ofcourse, 100 Municipal Corporation, 2100 Nagar Panchayats and 1500 municipal councils. But here, it is not Municipal Corporation or Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Council. It is Urban Development Authority. Not all those you have mentioned will not have such authority. Wikipedia may offers visitors regarding specific topics. So, this article may exist, while others are existing. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:NCORP, and without going into FALLACY, here are a few:
Just go to Google, and search * Development Authority, and you will get 100s of them. Thanks, User4edits ( talk) 05:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
So what, Why can't create articles for them ? Wikipedia has articles for all the 1000s of cities wright ? So, is there any problem with articles for Development Authorities ? Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 08:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Star Mississippi,
Hope you are doing good.
Actually, I haven't got answered for my previous questions for my earlier defence. Kindly go through it, and make way for retain this article. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 06:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
That is not the role of an administrator at AfD, and I don't have the subhect matter interest to act as an editor here. However the onus is on you who wants to retain it to find WP:CORP level sourcing, not anyone else. Star Mississippi 14:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet and no one has commented upon the nominator's suggestion of a Redirect closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion is a sign that sometimes folks only show up to an AFD discussion after several relistings so they can serve a useful purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of largest hotels in Europe

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

Appears to be original research. Links mostly reference the official hotel website. We already have List of largest hotels and I don't think the notability for a continental list is quite there. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Europe, Organizations, Travel and tourism, and .... Ajf773 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least for this list most of it wouldn't be on the main largest hotel list, which is limited to hotels with >3,000 rooms, and there's no real easy way to ascertain a hotel room count without the hotel group websites, as rooms can often be mothballed and be undercounted from municipal authorities and the like. Both use that sourcing and there's no issue as-is with either. Nate • ( chatter) 21:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Articles by continent are not usually seen as violating WP:CROSSCAT.
Wizmut ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:CROSSCAT is not the reason for deletion in this case. It's a case of both notability and original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Frivolous comment: I read the article title as List of largest holes in Europe :) Geschichte ( talk) 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, agree with nom that NLIST is failed, as none of the sources in the article, nor any I could find in a search, make this grouping. The topic of "largest hotels" is too niche to get multiple articles, unlike e.g. largest cities. Mach61 ( talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "autobiographies" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. M, Patrick (2023-08-21). "Top 5 Largest Hotels in Europe". Construction Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes:

      Of the total hotels in Europe, here are the top 5 largest. The list is based on the number of rooms.

      1. The Izmailovo Hotel in Russia (5,000 rooms)
      2. Barkhatnye Sezony Sportivny Kvartal in Russia (4,688 rooms)
      3. The Cosmos Hotel in Russia (1777 rooms)
      4. The Royal National Hotel in England (1630 rooms)
      5. The Gothia Towers in Sweden (1200 rooms)
    2. Tuin, Christel (2015-02-27). "Dit zijn de 5 grootste hotels van Europa" [These are the 5 largest hotels in Europe]. Hospitality Management (in Dutch). Uitgeverij PS. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      According to this page from the publisher Internet Archive, Hospitality Management is a Dutch trade magazine for the hotel industry that is published eight times a year.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow list of largest hotels in Europe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

    Construction Review appears to be unreliable Mach61 ( talk) 17:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Microteaching

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

I couldn't find sources to show this is a clear and notable term. Boleyn ( talk) 18:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Just a quick Google search turns up some sources. [33] [34] [35] [36] The Wikipedia article is really light on sources and citations, but this appears to be an issue with article and not the topic. Rjjiii ( talk) 07:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It is rare in 2024 to find an article that is potentially notable, and written in standard English, yet is so terrible and lacking sources, and possibly in violation of WP:COPYVIO, that it must be started from scratch. I would not oppose a userfy process, if someone else is willing to adopt this article. Yet another case of a disaster of an article that is beyond normal editing processes discovered by Boleyn. Bearian ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. There are hundreds of reliable sources. You find the article in poor shape? Edit it. That's what we do. Also, what does being "a clear and notable term" even mean? Central and Adams ( talk) 02:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, despite my own cv-revdel tag, as the term obviously meets GNG. Mach61 ( talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Quotesearching "microteaching" on google gives "about 844,000 results." The term is notable, just the article needs work. DarmaniLink ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Network Advertising Initiative

AfDs for this article:
Network Advertising Initiative (  | talk | history | 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 has some coverage and is borderline, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [37]. Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [38]. Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo ( talk) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that. NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations. The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources. But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be deleted. Npdoty ( talk) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating Keep bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process? After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html
https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/
Npdoty ( talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There appears to be sufficient sources available here and more online that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The available sources seem to establish enough notability. popodameron ⁠ talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep'Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search. Maxcreator ( talk) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bangla Desh – A Voice of a New Nation

Bangla Desh – A Voice of a New Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive searches found two reviews. Some may argue that this meets the letter of WP:NBOOK criterion #1, but it doesn't meet the spirit. The first review, after stripping away the bibliographic information, the direct quotation, and the reviewer's opinion of what was going on in Bangladesh at the time, boils down to two sentences:

Physical reality, as in the cover picture as well as in the poems inside, can be so accusing! ... There are a few [of the poets in the 48 page collection] who try desperately to try to sing of love and passion, but their words also turn to mourning. [39]

The second review is not as tissue thin, but is still only a single paragraph (150 words). [40]

Wikipedia aims to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works. It does not aim to be so indiscriminate as to include books about which so little has been written. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sheena M. Joyce

Sheena M. Joyce (  | talk | history | 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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO/ WP:GNG or have an obvious WP:ATD. Successful career, but not notable enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Surely an Emmy nomination, the best documentary prize at the Hollywood Film Awards and GLAAD Media Awards, IDFA PLAY Award for Best Music Documentary at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam, and Roger Ebert's assessment of her film as among the annual best constitute "significant critical attention" per WP:FILMMAKER. See here and here. CCS81 ( talk) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep That first reference above has no byline. It reads like a block of AI generated PR and nothing else. Next time, don't post these on Afd. There is lots of other coverage and recently. Her Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes is very high, indicating a quality film maker. scope_creep Talk 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I've been adding much-needed sourcing to the filmography. Very definitely notable in her field. — Maile ( talk) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Variety article and the Philadelphia Citizen piece, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a subjective list which is not covered as a group in secondary sources, failing the WP:NLIST. Let'srun ( talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification

2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification (  | talk | history | 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 competition seems to be ongoing so I think WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. The subject itself also fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this back to this year's cup have failed because we allow fans to edit, much to my chagrin. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Africa. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While this is early in the process, we have sourced information for qualification to a major senior-level international tournament that will begin next month. Certainly not WP:CRYSTALBALL or WP:TOOSOON. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - agree with Jkudlick, this is an impending, notable event, part of an established series (see Category:Africa Cup of Nations qualification). Giant Snowman 09:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Unlike European/UEFA competitions or competitions from other confederations which have articles created a fortnight before official start, the CAF competitions are more of battle of creations among African Wikipedians as I've seen since my account creation. Also the nominator posted a notice of reversion on my talk page on the count of notability, which I consider an anomaly, and stated it is ongoing. What is actually ongoing as at this writing is the Olympic qualification tournament. Intrisit ( talk) 10:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No reasons to remove, next matches to be played within 3 weeks, thus NOT too early Riktetta ( talk) 18:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems extremely obvious to me. The most recent tournament has now ended, the next fixtures in this qualification cycle are starting in a few weeks. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of World Rally Championship broadcasters

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Let'srun ( talk) 00:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_24&oldid=1211606208"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chikki Panday

Chikki Panday (  | talk | history | 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 User4edits ( talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits ( talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I don't think this is the same perso:n www.opindia.com/2021/11/mumbai-police-summons-chikki-brother-of-chunky-panday-ncb-aryan-khan-drug-case/, which is a blacklisted spam site here. I see nothing for this businessman we'd use for sourcing; nothing at all that I can find to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A quick Google News search for Chikki Panday and चिक्की पांडे (in Hindi) has yielded a substantial number of articles. A new section has been added, accompanied by some sources, and additional citations will be appended soon. Also, yes this is the same person mentioned in the link you shared above so the subject satisfies the notability criteria outlined in  WP:GNG. 1.23.250.87 ( talk) 07:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Does not establish NBIO or pass GNG. User4edits ( talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Brother of a famous actor" isn't notable. Had he not been summoned by police, he'd still be a non-notable businessman. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, as emphasized in my vote above, aligns with the WP:GNG standard. WP:SIG specifies that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have cited two additional sources to further substantiate the content and will continue to augment the references for a comprehensive overview. 1.23.251.79 ( talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits ( talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI the article is not based on WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY and it appears there might be an oversight in reviewing the WP:GNG guidelines, which specify that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I also must point out that in this edit, you removed two of his official positions in a central government institution without any valid reason. Furthermore, attempting to suggest that the article is based on an WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY biography is not accurate. 1.23.251.79 ( talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Saying an appointment in a committee of MTNL, that too only a specific region of Mumbai is equivalent to a committee of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) is absurd, and so is being named as a member for representing one out of 28 states in 2008 (16 years ago). Both are misleading and appear advertising. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and will be dealt as per this DR, I see you've undone my edit, best of luck. I don't own anything here. User4edits ( talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 'Week Keep -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per @Oaktree b and @User4edits, no notability Tehonk ( talk) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject has substantial coverage in various reputable sources aligning with the criteria outlined in both GNG and BASIC. As per these guidelines individuals are considered notable if they have received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Furthermore it's emphasized that even if the coverage in any single source may not be extensive the aggregation of multiple independent sources suffices to establish notability. Given the presence of multiple sourced materials within the article the subject in question unequivocally meets the criteria stipulated by these policies to affirm notability.- FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 02:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's worth noting that an analysis of pageviews for the article reveals consistent engagement with significant monthly views since its inception. Notably in 2015 the article garnered nearly a million views on two separate occasions. While pageviews alone do not establish notability this observation underscores the level of interest and attention garnered by the subject. Although unrelated to the notability policies it serves as an additional testament to the subject's relevance and public interest. - FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17, BADNAC speedy overturned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

User4edits ( talk) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Which is a red flag, not helping the deletion request. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Fitindia above. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS  💬 07:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if keep voters highlighted the sources they believe show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The subject seems notable to me based on the sources provided. I performed a quick search on the subject and there appears to be some level of notability passing GNG. Mevoelo ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I just wanted to mention that there might be an article on this subject in the future if better sourcing was found and an editor went about creating it in Draft space and getting some AFC feedback on a draft article. But right now, the consensus here is to delete this particular article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Egov.Press

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

Created as part of a cross-wiki spam campaign for which the creator and his socks have been blocked. The campaigns for which the site garnered attention were notable, but no case has been made that these happened because of Egov/Alash's petitions. Nor is there any other claim to notability. Sourcing is generally unreliable and not independent of the site. Accepted in good faith through AfC by an established editor who is on board with this AfD and therefore this could not be draftified but if folks think this can be improved by someone without a COI, I have no objection to draftification.

NB: Appears headed for deletion in de wiki de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16._Februar_2024#Egov.Press whose notability standards are less strict, was speedied on IT Wiki Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Without independent sources, there's no claim for NCORP or GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and this. ‍ Relativity 01:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and the canvassing of users (that I personally experienced) both on- and off-wiki, even after being chastised about it, gives the impression that this is being done for publicity's sake rather than out of any encyclopedic virtue. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 03:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Star Mississippi If the author of the article is directly to blame for disseminating the message and other illegal actions, then what does the article with sources have to do with it? Having studied the whole situation, it seems to me that you have a personal dislike for the author. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:CCBC:9A01:BC92:77A9 ( talk) 07:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I think the following facts need to be taken into account when making a decision. These Kazakh news portals completely or partially devoted an article to the petition site as a separate topic.
  • These resources criticized the petition site.
  • In addition, the site’s petitions are mentioned many times in various foreign news reports. Wikipedia's rules state, When assessing the significance of web content, consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable impact on culture, society, entertainment, sports, economics, history, literature, science, or education. I don’t care about the article, but having studied the situation, I think that the article should be revised and left. This is up to the administration. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:F1B5:49DF:C11B:D812 ( talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As it turned out, articles in Spanish, Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz Wikipedia. Removed from Russian, Italian and French Wikipedia. 217.76.76.165 ( talk) 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, cross wiki spam, blatant promotion. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also piped the link to dewiki deletion discussion. No sources found in English, if at least, and so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Adding additional statements, the article in all other languages are exactly identical, using the same set of pictures and sources. The eswiki article has a maintenance tag that is the same as our {{ COI}} tag. Otherwise it is apparent that this article should be deleted in the other 5 languages, but this is not possibles because wikis have different policies, especially on notability. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Also adding that the article was deleted in an additional 5 wikis according to the history of the Wikidata item associated with the topic, (The wikis are frwiki, itwiki, ruwiki, simplewiki, and ukwiki.) in addition to that the page was deleted once here on enwiki according to there. I am sure that this article should be deleted as a clear example of "cross wiki spam" which was the reason behind the locking of all involved accounts. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 19:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Comment, also maybe worth noting that dewiki is also having a deletion discussion. Shaws username .  talk . 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks for that insight (and for linking de wiki). I knew they disappeared from the sidebar but wasn't sure how to track that. I'm not certain it has previously been deleted here, just moved all over the map for capitalization/transliteration reasons. Star Mississippi 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep delete. I don't see any cross-wiki spam. Many translations of the wiki article is not spam. The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. The article has enough sources. The article is of low quality, that's right. I recently corrected one author's error, replaced a false nonsensical source with a relevant one, see diff and Talk:Egov.Press#A strange reference. But low quality and errors are a reason for improvement, not for removal. Its sources IMHO prove that this article has sufficient WP:N.

    A source from my diff (in translation). Dana Burkhanova; Asylkhan Kushkimbayev (2022-05-08). "Improving Mechanisms of Interaction Between Civil Society and the State". Scientific Collection «InterConf» (in Kazakh) (107): 192–200. It seems, Dana Burkhanova and Asylkhan Kushkimbayev are serious authors. In this article Egov.Press is mentioned twice.

    À propos. It has been explained in Commons that there is no reason to quickly remove the files tagged by Star Mississippi as Speedy, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Astana 202302.jpg etc. This is similar to unjustified cross-wiki harassment of the author.

    — Yuri V. ( t• c) 23:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC). reply

    • I had missed the move to a deletion discussion so thanks for flagging @ Yuri V.. I do object to your characterization of it as cross wiki harassment. They are locked for spam and socking, the latter of which they have continued and the former you seem to acknowledge: The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. is promotion. I filed the SPI, but being caught promoting a site doesn't mean they're being harassed. Star Mississippi 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Collapsing redundant tangents, edging into personal attacks. Kindly take these elsewhere ( WP:ANI or talk pages, if absolutely necessary). The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: apart from the spam, the sources mostly just mention Egov.press and doesn't go WP:INDEPTH She was a fairy 09:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Roaring Twenties (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND r WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I found nothing. I really don't know why it was deproded. It is a bit of a puzzlement, since a notable band always makes an impact at any time in history, it is always recorded, even if its 100 years ago. It's not some writer, or a historian or playwright, may be so obscure that they are invisible. There is no coverage, no social media, nothing on fb, nothing on myspace, reliable source doesn't turn up anything, Gbooks has nothing, nothing in the open web or some fan wordpress site. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Comment The reason I deprodded this, as explained in the edit summary, was because my google searches were so filled with false positives that I was not, and still am not, confident that I would find true positives if they existed - especially given that the most obvious ways to exclude this hits about (other) bands that perform in the roaring twenties style would also exclude any hits about the band in question. Accordingly I felt deletion should not occur without the the subject being accorded the more in-depth look for sources that AfD provides over PROD. Additionally, the article claims coverage in sources that appear to be offline and which I don't have access to. In short, I don't know whether this band is notable, but I do know that it is impossible to tell either way from just a simple google search. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All these magazine are still available, Map in Scotland, God in the TV and Art Rocker here: [1] scope_creep Talk 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: There's seemingly 0 coverage of this band online. While offline sources may exist, they're hard to verify because no article title or author has been provided. Also, they're all from Spring 2006 and notability should be WP:SUSTAINED. Their discography was seemingly limited to a rare release EP and a couple compilation albums which doesn't bode well for notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kamienna Stara. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Zujkowszczyzna

Zujkowszczyzna (  | talk | history | 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. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony within Kamienna Stara. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kuderewszczyzna. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Brzozowy Borek

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka, but it is a part of a village rather a full one. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the village this is part of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not clear what the suggested Redirect target is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz It should redirect to Kuderewszczyzna. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

James Morton (baker)

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

Created by (possibly) someone who may have been the article subject himself or related to this person. Gained notoriety for appearing on The Great British Bake Off (series 3). Sure, he wrote cookbooks, and he reappeared once in a GBBO special, but do they make this person notable outside the series? I doubt that his (non-notable) medical career makes him meet the WP:GNG guideline or makes WP:BLP1E inapplicable. Matter was previously discussed in one past merger discussion and one discussion after merger/redirection was reverted. Regardless of notability, I'm not confident that the standalone article can hold on its own any longer. Should be (re-)redirected to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7)#James Morton, whose content I derived took from the article with some improvements. George Ho ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
I don't think this subject meets any of these conditions, let alone all three. pburka ( talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
How about WP:BIO1E then? George Ho ( talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
That's an even less restrictive guideline. Which do you consider to be the 1E: his first GBBO, his second GBBO, or his career as an author? pburka ( talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
His GBBO debut, i.e. the third series, which aired in the US as the fifth season on PBS. His GBBO reappearance hasn't made much of an impact, and his career as a cookbook author is to me just resume-building. George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ Pburka: What's your stance on this article so far? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't have one. pburka ( talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    What about my answer to your 1E question then? George Ho ( talk) 04:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I still don't think that BLP1E is applicable, since the subject had a substantial and well documented role in GBBO, and isn't a low-profile individual (he's a published author). Again, I have no position on the subject's notability, except that BLP1E isn't applicable. Any arguments to delete this page on those grounds are invalid. pburka ( talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a prolific and award winning author, a newspaper columnist, his television appearances, his brewing career, etc., seems to pass muster (and GNG). Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Subject looks notable and renowned to me. There appears to be quality relevant sources online about him. Meets the GNG requirements. Mevoelo ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per above two editors-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Would seem to have achieved notability as an author in addition to his TV appearances. Dunarc ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • George Ho, did you WP:MERGE content from James Morton (baker) to another page? If so, please add {{ merged-to|destination page name|date}} to Talk:James Morton (baker). Once you copy content from a page, we can't delete the original article for license/copyright reasons. (We could redirect the original article, however.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I really wish. I just derived content months before the bold redirect by another editor: diff of derivation (April 2021); diff of redirect (October 2021). George Ho ( talk) 06:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If your derivation constitutes a Derivative work, then we can't delete the source article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Donegall Quay

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Could possibly as an WP:ATD be merged/redirected to Belfast, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Not sure how one sentence would "unbalance" that huge article, but a little bit of a better look reveals the very obvious WP:ATD: List of parks and gardens in Belfast. Djflem ( talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems absolutely notable as an important piece of Belfast shipping history, even if it is just a park now: [2] [3] A lot of what I've found is historical material behind paywalls so the article is difficult to improve easily, but a Google Books search and Google Scholar search should at least put notability beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T· C 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Doesn't appear a proper Wikipedia:BEFORE was conducted, even if it "doesn't appear" notable, which is a weak nomination. Djflem ( talk) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    In fairness a simple search only brought up database type sites, but at the same time simple searches have gotten a lot worse over the past couple years I think. SportingFlyer T· C 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment perhaps I should have been clearer in my wording - by 'it doesn't appear' to be notable, I meant after looking for sources, I couldn't prove that it is. I am reluctant to say for sure whether something is notable or not, just myopinion, as it's amazing what sometimes others bring up. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So does your clearer wording mean you were unable to determine if it was notable or not, and therefore decided, because of your inability to determine, to create a AFD nomination to let other people do the deeper research to satisfy your curiosity? Not sure that's the purpose of AfD nominations. Djflem ( talk) 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Significant coverage is available in:
There are quite a few other books on the Internet Archive with references to Donegall Quay, these were just the first three that looked most substantial. Jfire ( talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yara Mustafa

Yara Mustafa (  | talk | history | 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 reliable and significant coverage on the actor herself. Also fails WP:NACTOR. popodameron ⁠ talk 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Zapata Espinoza

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Atterbury Theatre

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

It exists, there are sources. However, not enough to meet WP:N from what I could find. Boleyn ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pavel Micheev

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

Notability is questionable, even the profile sites that list him seem to not have much if any information about him. WP:NHOOPS might apply to "played most minutes" but, unless there is already consensus on this, I'd argue playing most minutes isn't that statistically important. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ( Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 20:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails GNG. If sources from another language could be found and verified, then maybe. But as is, he's not notable. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present). Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Russian offensive

2024 Russian offensive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We haven't created articles so far for any russian offensives because most of the fighting comes from their initiative anyway. For this reason we have many articles to integrate anything that could be possibly included here such as Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024), Battle of Marinka (2022–2023), Eastern Ukraine campaign, Luhansk Oblast campaign. We don't need this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Yes it is true most fighting is of Russian initiative but many sources are noticing that Russia is conducting larger scale offensives than usual. Even after Avdiivka was captured Russia is still pushing and reports are they captured Lastochkyne and half of Sjeverne west of the city. They have also attacked in the south approaching Robotyne and in the Bakhmut sector they've entered Ivanivkse. The ISW reports that Russia is also going to conduct a large scale operation in Luhansk. The Kremlin also claimed they took back Krynky which while denied by the Ukrainians does show Russia is doing attacks there as well. Overall, it appears Russia is attacking across the front in an offensive larger than we've seen since 2022. I think its important for it to be recorded in a separate article just like many offensives in other wars. Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 23:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect My main problem with the article is the scope of locations it has. It specifically says the offensive is occuring in all of Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Luhansk Oblasts. None of the four listed sources specifically say that it is occuring in all four Oblasts. Rather, some just say a new offensive is occuring, while the ISW source says a "multi-axis offensive operation" is occuring. Until we find sources that make clear the connection of the offensives in all four Oblasts, I think that the offensive efforts in each individual Oblast can be handled in the various articles already created for them (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign; Luhansk Oblast campaign; or Dnieper campaign (2022–present)), specifically because it is debatable whether or not operationally significant gains have been made yet. I think it would make sense to, for now, redirect to Russian invasion of Ukraine#2023–2024 winter attrition (1 December 2023 – present), which would talk about the offensive efforts in each Oblast, without necessarily making a connection between them and a coordinated offensive across all the four Oblasts. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I will note that the two new sources added still don't make the connection that the offensives in each individual Oblast correspond to a wider coordinated campaign in all four Oblasts. The NY Times sources doesn't even talk about offensives outside of Robytne, while the Yahoo source, which cites an ISW source, does not say that all the three separate offensive efforts listed correspond to a coordinated offensive campaign. Gödel2200 ( talk) 23:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect. Offensives usually do something in wars, like capture territory, political gain, etc. So far, this supposed offensive has done none of that. If there is an offensive that is notable, then it will get it's own article in due time, but for now WP:TOOSOON to have this page. Not to mention, this seems like a mishmash of sources saying "yep, there's an offensive" instead of detailed locations, timeframes, goals, etc. For now, news of an offensive can easily fit in their respective campaign articles. Jebiguess ( talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Gödel2200. The article portrays events in Donetsk and Kharkiv Oblasts collectively, as if they were a single offensive. In the absence of this framing in reliable sources, this looks like synthesis to me. SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"A Russian military analyst close to the defense industry, Ruslan Pukhov, wrote last week that the assault on Avdiivka was part of a wider Russian strategy of pressuring Ukrainian forces along the entire 600-mile front line with thrusts and probes to exhaust the enemy “by a thousand cuts.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/world/europe/russia-deaths-avdiivka-strategy.html Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The source specifically says that Russia is using "thrusts and probes" along the entire frontline. It does not say that Russia is engaging in offensive actions along the entire frontline (non-offensive thrusts and probes can occur), but rather efforts in "pressuring" Ukrainian forces. More importantly, even if the source said Russia is engaging in offensives along the entire frontline, this still doesn't mean there is a singular coordinated 2024 Russian offensive across all axes, as the title of the article implies. Also, I'm not sure we should even be using information from Russia In Global Affairs in the first place. It says its editorial board is headed by Sergei Karaganov, a well known pro war advocate, who has called for the use of nuclear weapons against European NATO states. Gödel2200 ( talk) 02:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't mind changing the title of the article to reflect an offensive that is not fully coordinated across the entire front. But it is still clear that Russian forces are attacking across the front in an effort to take advantage of delays in US aid as well as exhaustion and morale loss on the Ukrainian side. It definitely shouldn't be kept as it is right now called a stalemate as Russia in the past 2 months or so likely captured more Russian territory than during the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Also, just because Karaganov is pro-war does not mean we shouldn't cite him, for example the Russian MoD is cited in the main Russian invasion of Ukraine article. He clearly has links to the Russian military and his claims of offensive actions across the front are supported by the advances Russia is making across the front. Robotyne in the south, Marinka, Avdiivka, Ivanivske and Novomikhailovka in the east, and Krokhmalne and Kupiansk in the northeast. Even in Kherson the Russians are pushing as reports https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-18-2024 say. The Ukrainians were attacking in a similar way with thrusts and probes to test defenses and making less progress than this current offensive during the initial parts of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and it still deserved an article which I agree with. And offensives don't have to capture massive amounts of territory to be considered an offensive. Some may think its too soon to call this an offensive but I think it is clear from what's going on that an offensive attempt is going on at the very least on eastern and southern Ukraine. There will likely be more sources on this as time goes on. Timetorockknowlege ( talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
You're right that just because Karaganov is pro-war doesn't mean we can't cite him. I just think we should be a bit more skeptical of analyses for which he is the head of the editorial board. The problem with the article isn't whether we think this is "similar" to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, or whether we think the actions by the Russians constitute an offensive; it's what the RS's say. And so far, the RS's state things differently than they did during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The RS's in the Ukrainain counteroffensive article consistently refer to the counteroffensive as a singular counteroffensive, not multiple counteroffensives. In contrast, the sources here do not say there is an offensive, but multiple offensive efforts, and do not state they are part of a larger coordinated one that is occuring throughout all the four Oblasts (as the article says). The sources we use here certainly do make it clear there are offensive efforts throughout Ukraine. But my argument is that we don't need to make separate articles for each offensive effort, as they can be sufficiently handled in the various articles we already have (such as Eastern Ukraine campaign, Luhansk Oblast campaign, etc.,). Gödel2200 ( talk) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Star Mississippi 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

KCYM-LD

KCYM-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 WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Haim Mahat

Haim Mahat (  | talk | history | 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 reliable sourcing on this artist to substantiate their notability for inclusion. An online BEFORE finds only his own website, social media a few auction database listings, but none of the significant coverage that we would usually find for a notable artist. Does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is sourced to his own website, and the database listings; the one offline reference can not be found in a Google search, nor on the website itself. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep please note Haaretz source, Mark Reich, Yoram (2016). "Wunder Kid". Haaretz is a noted RS; the lack of availability of sources in English online does not mean there are no sources. (On the contrary as mentioned above). Homerethegreat ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand what you are saying, however because it is the only reliable source, the content still needs to be verified per WP:V. Also to meet NARTIST and GNG we need more than just that source. Netherzone ( talk) 23:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
It is possible to put a - more citations needed for verifications template - instead of an AFD. (I apologize for the time it takes me to respond). Homerethegreat ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The AfD will run its course, however you can link to reliable sources here. His own website is used as a citation 6 times; ArtMutual is an auction database/user submitted content (primary, not independent); ArtNet (used twice) is an auction database/user submitted content (primary, not independent) - his paints sell at auction for a few hundred dollars; פחות מאלף (Under1000) is a blog/user-submitted social media art selling site (primary, not independent). So whatever you may find could be useful if it is verifiable, independent and a reliable source.
I can't find a trace of the Haaretz source online whether I search in English or Hebrew or on the Internet archive Wayback machine; I even tried searching under the author's name in both Hebrew and English. The thing is even if it could be verified, it's not enough to met NARTIST nor GNG. However, it seems pretty clear that he is not notable by Wikipedia criteria. I'm not finding any notable exhibitions, reviews, collections, art historical articles or books, etc. Netherzone ( talk) 17:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:ARTIST and the WP:GNG. This one article that is claimed to be on him is not linked on Enwiki and Hewiki. It can't be found on the Haaretz site. Maybe it appeared in Ha-Ir, the regional newspaper of Haaretz for the Tel Aviv region? Some great journalism there, yet unfortunately not online. Also otherwise I found close to nothing. The son is an actor, has a beautiful apartment that was covered in Ynet [i.e. Yediot], where Haim's paintings are on the wall. Surprise surprise and passing mention. That's about it. I did search the national newspaper archives for Israel as well. These are far from complete but we work by RS and V. gidonb ( talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lipcon, Margulies, and Winkleman

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the firm itself. Similar to many articles about lawyers, the problem is that notability for the firm is not inherited from coverage about lawsuits it was a part of, or from quotes about other topics attributed to the firm's lawyers. ~ A412 talk! 20:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SVNS. and to any other articles that are appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of World Rugby Sevens Series broadcasters

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as it is not discussed as a group within secondary sources. In addition, several of the entries are unsourced. Let'srun ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep (software)

Yep (software) (  | talk | history | 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 software article has zero references to establish notability. Appears to be written like a press release. After searching, unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the software itself. Article was PROD on 19 January 2023, then self-reverted 23 January 2023. JoeNMLC ( talk) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. - Master of Hedgehogs ( converse) ( hate that hedgehog!) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete does not look notable to me. Article does not to show adequate sourcing and notability. Mevoelo ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Encoded Talk to me! 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: indeed, written like a press release. the sourcing used is reviews and that doesn't qualify as reliable sourcing. it's quite hard to find sourcing apart from those, anyway. She was a fairy 09:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/ Rational 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Beretta 9000

Beretta 9000 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG. We know that this pistol exists but it's not likely notable. It was easier to find mentions in fiction that it is to find published works that verify the facts in the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IDN Media. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IDN App

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

Questionable notability, merge with IDN Media? IgelRM ( talk) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge The article was written separately on Indonesian Wikipedia, so I translated it as such. However, I agree with the merge as it is more appropriate in this case. — Zenica87 ( talk) 08:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for commenting author, understandable. IgelRM ( talk) 22:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jason Schmidt (photographer)

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Successful career for notable projects, but notability is not inherited. No suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as non-notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His website's about page conveniently lists a bunch of significant coverage.
Jfire ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The references listed above seem to establish that he is an important photographer in his own right (not just by association with famous subjects he has photographed). There are at least three reputably published books of his work – which is also widely published in periodicals, exhibited and collected. As such, the article seems like one that should be kept and improved (perhaps by adding some of the above refs). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Agree with above points that the references listed suggest notability and the article could easily be improved. Editing84 ( talk) 08:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Tanya Heaslip

Tanya Heaslip (  | talk | history | 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 author. Lacks independent coverage. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS  💬 13:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Elena Palmer

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

Unnotable. A BEFORE search only shown her self-published profiles. Additionally, her only claim to notability, a book which criticized Peter III, has no sources documenting it. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - before this article was nominated for deletion, a source from Welt in the External links section references the book: Kiel bekommt ein Denkmal für den umstrittenen Zaren Peter III. (21.02.2014) "„Peter III war ein progressiver Herrscher, der durch wirtschaftliche und soziale Reformen das feudale Russland aus seiner mittelalterlicher Starre in die Moderne bringen wollte“, sagt die Journalistin Elena Palmer. Am Rande: Auf Basis ihres Buches „Peter III." (Google translate: "“Peter III was a progressive ruler who wanted to bring feudal Russia out of its medieval rigidity into the modern age through economic and social reforms,” says journalist Elena Palmer. By the way: Based on her book “Peter III."). There also appears to be a source in sh:z about Palmer and her work/book: Wer war Peter III. wirklich? (07.06.2013) but this is subscription/payment-blocked. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there is also a section on the article talk page opened in 2020 with a list of suggested sources, including Volksstimme (17.06.2014), mentioning "Um diese jüngste Bewertung des Zaren aus Kiel hat sich vor allem die Autorin Elena Palmer mit ihrem Buch "Peter III. Der Prinz von Holstein" verdient gemacht." (Google translate: The author Elena Palmer made a great contribution to this latest assessment of the Tsar from Kiel with her book “Peter III. The Prince of Holstein”. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: as non-notable at this time. Maybe in the future. Fails GNG. Nirva20 ( talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete google news search comes up with namesakes and no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mexican Summer. Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Anthology Editions

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

Subject fails NCORP. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Typically, publishers of thought are not themselves the subject of other's thoughts. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New York. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mexican Summer, no coverage besides initial press release and trivial mentions as publisher. Anthology Recordings might be a better redirect target, but it doesn't seem independently notable either. ~ A412 talk! 18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Mexican Summer. The previous redirect attempt was absurd. The target, Anthology Recordings, had a far worse WP:NCCORP deficiency, being supported by only one primary ref. There should be a proper merge to the parent ( Mexican Summer) rather than a WP:BLAR-out of content. Dl2000 ( talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. In a cursory search, did not find any other significant coverage about the publisher independent from the books. If the article needed to exist as a list to house content related to books that would not otherwise warrant their own page, we could entertain that, but not seeing much written about each book. czar 18:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Ed Edwards as a viable ATD. Given veracity concerns, the history is not preserved Star Mississippi 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Stealing Elvis

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

Advertorialized article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for and/or won awards at minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- we're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry film festival that exists on earth. But the referencing here is more than half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left for media coverage is a couple of hits in small weekly community hyperlocals that aren't widely-distributed enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're the only media coverage this has.
As I don't have access to archives of British media to determine whether the film had stronger coverage a decade ago than it's citing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this, and the blatant advertorialism present in the article means it would have to be substantially rewritten regardless. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ed Edwards, where it is mentioned; and merge whatever material will help improve the page.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unfortunately, a non-notable independent film that does not qualify for an article. Oliver Phile ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article so that it could be better judged, as the prior version was kind of hodge podge. I also tried finding sourcing - I found actual links to a few of the things mentioned, but not much. What I did find doesn't really give any indication that there are more sources out there. I think that what's in the article - or at least referenced - is all that existed. I even tried using the Wayback Machine on the PLECTRUM website and had zero luck.
Now as far as the pre-existing sourcing in the article goes, its usability is suspect because of one of the edited quotes in the reception section, the one sourced to the Camden New Journal. It comes across as being about the overall production company rather than the film. If the best you can do from an article (to establish notability) is one line that, even after being edited, still doesn't cover the film in question it should not be considered usable unless we could verify that the article in question discusses the film in any sort of depth. As a result that makes all of the other sources in the article questionable because that makes me wonder how those were actually written up in the actual source.
This in turn makes me wonder about the overall truthfulness of the article. I don't think that the person who wrote it was lying exactly, but it does give off the impression that they engaged in WP:PUFFERY. This in turn makes the director's article highly suspect as well and I'd recommend reviewing that and generally anything related to him in order to see if it's a case of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Offhand a quick look at the article in its current state - as well as for The Promoter (2013 film) - give off the impression that neither the film nor the director are notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd nominate it myself, but I'm so sporadically on Wikipedia nowadays due to work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Carrie Keller-Lynn

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

Blatant WP:BLP1E. Sources are weak, either not third-party (itrek) or sourced to a "site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books." (Subject is not a book, nor an author of a book.) Brazilian Forum source, whether RS or not, has only eight sentences in the article which are about Keller-Lynn, even broadly considered. Searching found no better sources. Note: I have edited the article since filing the AfD in two ways: removed an unsourced claim that the subject is American-Israeli", and remove a claim that a photo was deleted from a website, which was both not in the given source and provably false, as I indicated on the talk page. This claim had been being used to justify a fair-use basis for hosting a copyrighted photo, so I removed the photo itself from the article. Further: I have now removed claims sourced to a self-published source added after the start of the AfD, in violation of WP:BLPSPS -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST by a country mile. The irony is that often bios of journalists are puffery and apparently self-written. This article gives the opposite impression. That said, we have an article here that totally fails to show reliable sourcing such as to satisfy the stringent requirements of the guideline. A WP:MILL writer albeit one who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A regular person at work. Nothing that makes her stand out from the rest of the journalists. Fails JOURNALIST and even the GNG. gidonb ( talk) 21:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom. also Fails WP:JOURNALIST Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability requirements. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Treamis World School

Treamis World 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)

Cannot find any reliable sources indicating notability of this school. Articles found have been about students or brief passing mentions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Redmi 6A

Redmi 6A (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No sources except a listing on a web site. North8000 ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Peckham, James (2018-11-09). "Hands on: Xiaomi Redmi 6A review. A lot for a little". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The Xiaomi Redmi 6A is an affordable phone, and you'll instantly recognize that as soon as you pick it up in your hand. Considering its price, we found the Xiaomi Redmi 6A to feel quite premium in hand, with a metal effect on the rear of the device that's brushed to make it feel that bit more authentic. ... The Xiaomi Redmi 6A isn't going to floor you with its performance or features, but everything here seems to work well. Considering the price, you'll likely be happy with what the Redmia 6A can do and it keeps pace with other budget alternatives."

    2. Arora, Karanveer Singh (2019-01-21). "Xiaomi Redmi 6A Review: Best budget smartphone?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "Redmi 6A is a capable smartphone for the price. At the price, it delivers on performance, specifications, and is a compact and easy to use smartphone. However, the phone does have its fair share of cons like low-light camera performance, no fingerprint sensor and using the smartphone outside under direct sunlight. For under Rs 7,000 this is not a bad option, though Realme C1 will give tough competition to the phone as well."

    3. Mukherjee, Amritanshu (2018-09-24). "Redmi 6A review: Xiaomi's feature-loaded Aam Aadmi' smartphone". Deccan Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "The Redmi 6A is a pretty good deal if you are hunting for a smartphone that won’t bother your wallet. For entry-level smartphone users, the 6A is a considerable upgrade over the Redmi 5A, especially with a bigger display and a more powerful chipset. As a secondary device, it can easily go through the donkey-work of handling lots of calls and messages. MIUI single-handedly holds a lot of value for the Redmi 6A with loads of features. At this price, the competition is mostly offering Android Go devices with weaker specifications but the promise of faster updates to the latest version of Android. However, the Redmi 6A is a quality product that aims to offer a satisfactory smartphone experience even for a measly price tag. And for that reason alone, the Redmi 6A earns our recommendation."

    4. "Xiaomi Redmi 6A vs Redmi 5A: Specifications and features compared". The Indian Express. 2018-06-14. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "Xiaomi Redmi 6A has been launched in China. The successor to Redmi 5A, which is priced starting at Rs 5,999 in India, comes with a FullView 18:9 aspect ratio display, an updated processor and Face Unlock feature. The budget phone was unveiled alongside the Redmi 6. As of now, Xiaomi has not officially confirmed whether the devices will be available in India."

    5. Dutta, Meghna (2018-09-08). "Redmi 6A vs Redmi 5A: Specifications comparison". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes: "The new Redmi 6A is the cheapest model from the lot which has been launched at an introductory price starting at Rs 5,999 for the 2GB RAM/16GB storage model. Xiaomi overhauled a few aspects on the Redmi 6A, like the design, mobile platform, rear camera arrangement and a taller display with higher resolution compared to the Redmi 5A. The Redmi 6A smartphone now boasts a 5.45-inch HD+ 18:9 display and a MediaTek chipset instead of Qualcomm found on the Redmi 5A. Battery capacity on the new Redmi smartphone remains the same at 3,000mAh. Lets dive deeper into the major changes Xiaomi has made on Redmi 6A as compared to its predecessor, the Redmi 5A."

    6. Sang, Augustine (2018-08-28). "Tech Break: The Redmi 6A is not your average entry level phone". Daily Nation. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The Xiaomi Redmi 6A may be entry level but it certainly doesn’t feel like it. I loved its build quality and even though the body is made of plastic, it just felt comfortable due to its curved edges. It's quite light as well.Xiaomi also did a great job with the design, especially on the front side.But we don’t buy smartphones just for their looks only. Performance matters more. I played around for a few days with the phone and my conclusion is that it’s exactly what you would expect from a modern budget smartphone with a number of bonuses."

    7. Bhagat, Hitesh Raj (2018-10-26). "Redmi 6 & 6A review: Good camera, efficient processor". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The review notes: "The camera on the Redmi 6 is surprisingly good for the asking price. You get a portrait mode (because of the 5MP depth sensor), manual mode, multiple scene modes, 1080p video, slo-motion video, EIS for video and built in time lapse. The 6A drops the portrait mode and slowmotion but is otherwise mostly the same. We got some nice results in daylight with good dynamic range and colour. You also get a beautify mode (configurable) for the front camera and generally pleasing photos in good lighting. Battery life is about a full day for most users."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Redmi 6A to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The sources identified above seem sufficient, I think we have notability. I couldn't find anything, but these are good! Oaktree b ( talk) 15:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nurul Fikri Boarding School

Nurul Fikri Boarding 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)

The boarding school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:NORG. Searches show that the school existed, but nothing notable about the school has been shown. Some news articles that are cited in id-wiki showed how some students of this school survived a tsunami in Sunda Strait in 2018, but that didn't show any notability to the school. Other references in id-wiki showed the school won some awards but that didn't confer any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Islam, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There is not much to go on in the article. No sources, and apparent low enrollment. However there are books mentions. The only one I could track down to start with is [11], which talks about "Sekolah Islam' schools and cites this school as one of two examples (although there is a long note about why this school is a Sekolah Islam and not a pesentrans). It says, inter alia, Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School [is] known for producing top students who ace the national exams and win trophies in national and international competitions (see Figure 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows a trophy cabinet but it is not clear if this is their cabinet or that of the other school visited. There is more about high quality teachers, it is run by school management, and has a non traditional currciulum. The book doesn't say how big the school is, but I would put this down as one reliable secondary source that appears independent of the subject. We need multiple for GNG, but despite the parlous state of the page, I don't think this is a clear delete. I'll keep looking. Also please note the name used in this book "Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri" would be an alternative and search with or without "boarding". Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Another ref:
Salmon, Yoseph; Saefudin, Didin; Mujahidin, Endin; Husaini, Adian (8 February 2024). "Pengembangan Kurikulum Sekolah Islam Terpadu Tingkat SMP di Pondok Pesantren (Studi Lapangan pada Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten)". Jurnal Global Ilmiah. 1 (6): 321–324. doi: 10.55324/jgi.v1i6.50.
This one is about "Development of the Integrated Islamic School Curriculum at the Junior High School at the Islamic Boarding School (Field Study at the Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten Islamic Boarding School)". There are a lot of these, in fact. Scholar shows at least 10 such references I could post. It seems that a lot of people are looking at this school as an exemplar of islamic boarding schools and curricula. But there is also a question of whether there is some kind of promotion for this, and I note that few of the papers have any citations at all, and some are just preprints. Writing a paper is one thing, but not all papers are born equal. The school website tells me they have nearly 1000 pupils, and they also have a large staff. The various papers speak highly of the school, and even taking into account my caution regarding lack of citations of these, their own alumni pages and other pages seem to bear this out. If I was better versed in the culture and background I might have a stronger view, but on the basis of the evidence here, it is a large school, open for 25 years, studied in academic papers, mentioned in books and newspaper reports. It looks like a keep to me. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In contrast to the paucity of material on many schools put up in AfD this one does have coverage enough to satisfy the GNG. It seems to have been used as a model for research. Another paper is here [12] (assuming it's this school) same name but identifies only the province, not an exact location. Another here: [13]. Further coverage: [14] and here. [15] Rupples ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Re strike through: having read through this paper, I don't think it's of a standard to contribute to notability. Rupples ( talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/ Rational 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Robin (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since January 2023

Citations on other language pages do not appear to support notability either. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Sweden, Canada, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Television series for national television. AlexandraAVX had already added a good secondary source. I've added a couple of other Swedish articles, and I think this lives up to our requirements. / Julle ( talk) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Julle's reasoning. The Dagens Nyheter source looks solid: a national newspaper with an article called "Robin hopes to become hip in the whole world". The Expressen article is called "Prized friends got drunk. But now Magnus figures are child-friendly" — this is referring to Carlsson's next series for children, comparing it to the adult-oriented Robin. This series got national attention. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there's now three sources in Swedish national newspapers that discuss the subject, it definitely seems to meet GNG to me at this point. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per improvements made since nom. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Christian heresies

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

Many Christian denominations (Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy) condemn every different religious belief/doctrine that doesn't align with theirs as "heresy". We would have to compile a list of every possible religious belief/doctrine for this list to ever be complete. – Howard 🌽33 13:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Howard 🌽33 13:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep. The article clearly defines its criteria for inclusion: beliefs that have been specifically condemned as heretical by one or more Christian churches, a reasonably limited set. Empirically, it doesn't seem to be having the problem you're worried about, and instead it's serving its purpose perfectly well as a list of topics like Arianism and Gnosticism.— Moriwen ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    So “heresies” in this case only apply to those religious beliefs which have been verbally condemned by mainstream Christian denominations? – Howard 🌽33 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    That seems to be what the page says:
    > This is a list of all Christian heresies that have been condemned by one or more Christian churches. — Moriwen ( talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean I don't know, I thought a heresy didn't need to be vocally condemned as such by a church. – Howard 🌽33 00:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Howardcorn33, I don't think a heresy "needs to be vocally condemned as such by a church" but that is what is required for a heresy to be listed in this article. Your deletion rationale implies there is a problem with this article being "complete" but by having a specified requirement for inclusion, this problem is reduced. For example, many lists we have of people require that there be an article about them on Wikipedia (and other limiting factors like country, medium, etc.). If, for example, we had a list of just "Actors" which could include anyone who identifies as an actor, then that would be impossible to create and maintain and would be unencyclopedic. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Lists. Shaws username .  talk . 17:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the list has a well-founded and sharply-delimited inclusion criterion, and there are many reliable sources for membership of the list. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Easily satisfies WP:NLIST in that heresies as defined here have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources at great, great length. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category:Heresy shows there are other such things, each religion having them. There are references including to places like https://www.britannica.com/topic/monophysite which calls it "heresy of the Monophysites". Dream Focus 21:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The list of heresies in the Catholic Church is a good list of heresies condemned by the Catholic Church, but it is not possible to include heresies condemned by other churches in that list. That is why this list was created. Your issue likely isn't here as most entries end in "-ism," signifying specific theological deviations from mainline Christianity. EXANXC ( talk) 08:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: It seems this article only counts heresies as religious beliefs which are vocally condemned by a particular Christian church. I was considering on a different definition of heresy, whereby any religious belief which contradicts an official church teaching is a heresy, regardless of whether the church vocally condemns it as such.
Perhaps we should change the name of the article then to something like "List of religious beliefs considered heretical by various Christian churches" (not the shortest title i know) so we can be more clear about this? Because otherwise it seems like wikipedia itself is personally condemning these beliefs as heretical by including them in the list. – Howard 🌽33 00:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
This discussion would be just perfect for the article talk page. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Alright then, I retract my call to delete the article in that case. – Howard 🌽33 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per research/sourcing found during nomination. Nomination was also withdrawn, but this ran the full time so opting for the keep vs. NW Star Mississippi 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Stephen Holland (artist)

Stephen Holland (artist) (  | talk | history | 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:NARTIST. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Boxing, and Olympics. Theroadislong ( talk) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NARTIST. Only one source is listed, which appears to be a broken link, nor was it used to back up any of the article content. I did have a quick search for other potential references online but am not seeing anything useful. Editing84 ( talk) 11:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per sources like [16] [17] (ProQuest) and [18] (newspaperarchive) Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I was about to !vote delete on this but did a deeper dive into what might be found online. I found two notable museum collections which puts him over the bar for WP:NARTIST. I added these to the article. There were some other things online which might meet GNG (haven't yet looked at what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has found). But I think this is a case of a poorly written, formatted and sourced stub on a notable niche artist. It can be improved to meet WP standards, I think. Netherzone ( talk) 17:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment Gråbergs Gråa Sång I can't see any of those sources but recent edits have added details of work in public collections so WP:NARTIST would seem to be achieved and I'm happy for someone to close this discussion. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Try accessing the databases first via WP-library, then try the links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Theroadislong, I was able to find several long in-depth articles on him online, but haven't added them to the article yet, but I will. This sort of art is not my cup of tea, but it does seem clear that he is notable. Netherzone ( talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Netherzone and other interested, feel free to dig into the stuff here: [19] too, it was posted by his wife. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - From my own research on the subject, he seems notable. However, the way in which it was written does not show notability. I think more work should be done on the article to make it standard for Wikipedia. Mevoelo ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- First of all the sources already in the article are sufficient to pass GNG. Secondly the guy has paintings in the National Gallery of Art and the National Portrait Gallery, which in itself is sufficient to satisy WP:NARTIST. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree as the nominator, the article as it now stands passes WP:NARTIST and this discussion can be closed. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:BEFORE please. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ARM Cortex-A9 with history preserved if someone wants to merge. Viable ATD and no need to relist Star Mississippi 15:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

S5P4418

S5P4418 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan page, unsourced, containing uniquely datasheet specifications. No evidence of notability. Broc ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable, and no sources used at all. Editing84 ( talk) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sławno, Podlaskie Voivodeship per discussion, albeit no !vote for one. Star Mississippi 14:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kaszuba, Podlaskie Voivodeship

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Sławno. Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 15:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Question - @ Ilawa-Kataka:, have you considered a merge or redirect to Sławno, Podlaskie Voivodeship as an WP:ATD? ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng I am absolutely appalled that I did not think of deletion alternatives—though I am experienced with Wiktionary, I have only edited Wikipedia recently. However, I think it may be better as a redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as it is legally distinct from Sławno, and which census area(s) include Kaszuba or where it even is, is unclear (sources consistently locate it at some empty fields, and there are no addresses for Kaszuba). Is there a way I could retract my AfDs and just do that, and would that be appropriate? Ilawa-Kataka ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think, since there are not yet any !votes, you can retract. I'd ask Liz who recently relisted this discussion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If possible, redirect/merge > deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pacific Gateway

Pacific Gateway (  | talk | history | 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. I see various governmental documents but not enough independent secondary sources to show that could be added to the page to show how it meets the inclusion criteria JMWt ( talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete As per JMWt points- no references used at all, and doesn't have the potential sources to be deemed notable. Editing84 ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Detachments (British band)

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I made a major overhaul of the article and added several references. There are plenty of reliable sources about the band out there, and more work can be done, but I have made a start. Deleting the article seems extreme. If people really don't think the band itself is notable, then what about renaming the article to "Bastian Marshal" (the vocalist and seemingly "leader" of the band)? And then making it about his work in general with this band and his other work as well, as it seems he has had a lot of involvement with music apart from just this specific band. Vontheri ( talk) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, and, if it wasn't obvious, my vote is for keep. Vontheri ( talk) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mecha Love

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

This is borderline, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG / WP:GNG. Reaching number 20 on a non-notable chart and some coverage doesn't quite make it. Suitable WP:ATD could be merge/redirect to album or artist, but I am not sure if the title is unambiguous enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Simon Wakelin

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. It could merge/redirect to his wife, Tia Carrere, but I am not convinced it would be appropriate. Claims to notability seem to be be married to and working with and on notable people and projects, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn ( talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

National Housing Conference

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 15:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the generic name makes searching difficult. Google Scholar and Google Books do show fairly regular references to the NHC in academic work, and occasionally studies they have sponsored or hosted are cited. There is not a ton of in-depth coverage of the organization, but there is some, especially with regards to their 1931 founding, work in the 30s, and their founder, Mary Simkhovitch ( example and especially example 2). — Ganesha811 ( talk) 02:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- There are plenty of sources under the former name of National Public Housing Conference. Here's a findsources for that so you can see what I mean:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Central and Adams ( talk) 10:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Brilliant Labs

Brilliant Labs (  | talk | history | 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 WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Like I said elsewhere, I added categories to it and linked to it elsewhere on Wikipedia. That should satisfy two criticisms.
Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the three sources are major outlets. It's not quite scientific, but that seems like it establishes a reasonable basis for being notable. It's also supported by major investors, although I didn't add those in - not yet, anyway. I'm debating in my mind how to do it without being promotional.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ar-glasses-multimodal-ai-nets-140019767.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20inception%20in%202019,at%20Y%20Combinator%3B%20and%20others. Rjohnson1980 ( talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Both The Verge and Axios weren't really about the company but the Forbes and South China Morning Post pieces are good and seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. Editing84 ( talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references provided to date all rely entirely on interviews/quotes from company officials and other information provided by the company. HighKing ++ 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel ( talk) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jhalra Jama Masjid

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

Unable to find sources that show that this mosque meets WP:GNG. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and Uttar Pradesh. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are two sources and neither have any coverage on the title. One of the source indiastan.com shows a location of different mosque with unnamed street address. Fails WP:N and per nom fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 13:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Fram ( talk) 08:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗ plicit 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Akari Saho

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

Could possibly merge/redirect to Up Up Girls Kakko Kari but it could unbalance that article. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Boleyn ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it would make more sense if all members of the group (current and former) had at least a small bio section, if it were to be merged. Then maybe it would be slightly unbalanced but not so terribly much. It wouldn't be that hard to at least include their basic info and other accomplishments, because a lot of them have appeared in various media before, which could fill out a general "members" section.
Just my two cents as a fan of Akari and the group, but not really an active editor.
Yamakirisei ( talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Enough coverage to establish notability within the article. Clearly a notable person, for example, could quickly find two pieces of coverage about her recently getting a black belt in karate [22] [23] [24]. Scant evidence of a WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources not just English. DCsansei ( talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree there does not seem to be WP:BEFORE ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:SIGCOV in Japanese media. She was a fairy 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ihor Lachenkov

Ihor Lachenkov (  | talk | history | 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 blogger. Кронас ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This is a close one. The best sources I could find are probably [25] and [26] which are pretty basic. Most other sources are interviews or passing mentions. On the other hand, even a passing mention in The New York Times is pretty impressive for a Ukrainian blogger. He is also the most popular news blogger for young Ukrainians according to a UN sponsored study. Having an article on him improves Wikipedia. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Next time, please include a more substantial deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comments and question: the Uk article looks substantial. Can the text and cites be translated and added? Bearian ( talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: lots of sourcing is written in ukrainian, but per Eluchil404 there is sufficient sourcing that relatively meets notability. She was a fairy 09:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Javier Pinto

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

fails WP:GNG B-Factor ( talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very newly created article. If this is deleted as a Soft Deletion, it will be restored quickly. So, let's try relisting it for a few more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to establish notability for Pinto or really any coverage at all of him or his works. I found some general primary source hits and some junk hits, but nothing that would actually be usable for notability purposes. This seems to be your run-of-the-mill self-publishing creative who has not gained any mainstream attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pardi (lecturer)

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

Do not meet WP:GNG. B-Factor ( talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There are five sources I haven't included that could prove he's notable. It's just that I'm feeling lazy at this moment, maybe could u move it to draft first instead of immediately deleting it? SoilMineo39 ( talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
SoilMineo39, if you can demonstrate notability, then now is the time to do so. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:BIO. Not yet notable, but best of luck to him with his commendable charity work. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF. The sources listed in the article have passing mentions, but little more; I also have concerns about the reliability of the publication venues. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Ignacio

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

Can't see how this person is notable. Has won some routine competitions. The article suggests he's won big international tournaments, but simply hasn't. Didn't have the sort of coverage to meet WP:GNG in my WP:BEFORE Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BlinqIO

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

Sourcing both current and online is either WP:PRIMARY (press releases) or non- WP:RELIABLE pubs. TLA tlak 07:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Just launched in Sep. 2023. I cannot find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and none of the cited sources contribute to notability. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kanika Dewan

Kanika Dewan (  | talk | history | 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, inflated promotional User4edits ( talk) 06:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep... Looks fine. More than a trivial mention in sources. Meets general notability, though the article could do with adjusting prose and replacing some references. Whispyhistory ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A more solid deletion rationale would have been welcome. Right now, we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article is mostly promo, with lots of non-notable awards listed, website refs, etc. 128.252.172.14 ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - based on a review of sources in the article and a search for sources, there does not seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Multiple sources also seem promotional; for example, Kanika Dewan: Meet the diva who designed floors of IGI's T3 terminal (Economic Times, 2013) is interview-based and seems to be promoting the business she 'vertically integrated' with her family's mining company, e.g. to "capitalise on the exclusive availability of exotic marbles and granite." Girl power (India Today, 2010) is primarily interview-based. Guinness World Record holder Kanika Dewan has done projects for Sultan of Oman, for Roman Abramovich, airports in India (American Bazaar, 2014) is an interview that begins with a brief summary overview of several projects. Larger than life (Khaleej Times, 2011) is about the Guiness World Record for the marble mosaic portrait, with quotes and recollections from Dewan. 'Corruption, contract enforcement major hurdles for ease of business' (Business Standard, 2016) is a report on a "discussion round in a session titled ‘India Means Business’, at the India Economic Summit, jointly organised by CII and World Economic Forum" that briefly covers what she discussed about corruption. 4 Indians make it to World Economic Forum global leaders list (Business Today, 2016) is a mention of her being listed without specific detail, and the Economic Times announcement is similar. In the non-independent source of Dewan's alma mater's Wharton Magazine, Dewan is quoted in 2019 saying "my zero tolerance to corruption in India finally paid off and I earned a reputation for whistle-blowing against bribery, within my industry, on a national level" but I have not otherwise found support for article content that describes Dewan as a campaigner against corruption. Overall, this seems WP:TOOSOON to develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of course, if an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, they are free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Iridium 77

Iridium 77 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this single satellite in the Iridium cluster - it hasn't received independent coverage of any kind. No other satellite has an article except for Iridium 33 (which was destroyed in a well-documented satellite collision), and I don't see why this one should either. I'm not really sure if it should be redirected or converted to a disambiguation page or straight-up deleted. Kdroo ( talk) 05:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Does not meet GNC criteria. Redirection is not the optimal solution. Cinadon 36 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Silvaco

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

100% of references are press releases, i.e., then don't ensure notability per our standards - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [29] ~ A412 talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep, found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Henry C. Gonzalez

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

Unnotable mayor in a relatively smaller city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. He received some coverage upon his death and for his attempted assassination in 1999, but that does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCRIME. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete the LA Times obit is good enough coverage so he's closer to a keep than most of these, but we're not there yet, and I can't find anything else that would push him over the edge. SportingFlyer T· C 12:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire ( talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Trilby (1912 film)

Trilby (1912 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cronals ( talk) 04:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Keep,some editor developed the article.any one can close discussion.

Nomination withdrawn.Any one can close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after substantial work was done on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Vipers

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

Looks like an obscure rock band that couldn't secure a record contract or made an album. Not much to them with their brief existence. GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS referencing them, nothing in newspapers.com, proquest, or newspaperarchive.com for anything thats plausibly them although it might have been buried by other groups with the same name and rugby teams. Shaws username .  talk . 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The new sources are good and meet notability. Clearly I just failed miserably when I looked for sources, ResonantDistortion and Guliolopez have done a really good job adding sources. Shaws username .  talk . 18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sufficient WP:V sourcing has been added to the article since AfD to meet WP:NBAND. This includes WP:NBAND#12 featured significantly on a national radio station, and WP:NBAND#1, with a reliable independent source from Hot Press stating "We wrote about The Vipers regularly in Hot Press" even if these articles are not all available online due to it being >40 years ago. Also - The Vipers headlined a show above a little known band called U2 - how is that not notable? Resonant Distortion 18:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In my own WP:BEFORE I found and, together with ResonantDistortion have added, a number of sources which would appear to contribute to a WP:GNG claim. While the subject band did not appear to have chart success, to the extent that "single or album on any country's national music chart" or "record certified gold or higher" of WP:NBAND are not met, there does appear to be enough coverage to warrant retention on SIGCOV grounds. Certainly the coverage in music journalism sources (like Hot Press) and general news sources (like the Irish Independent) are contributory. In all honesty, some of the coverage is somewhat "passing" in nature, and I was therefore minded to frame my recommendation as a weak keep. I can't support outright deletion however... Guliolopez ( talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of television programmes broadcast by CITV

List of television programmes broadcast by CITV (  | talk | history | 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 NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a TV guide or list of former station programming.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comic Yuri Hime#Serialized works. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Asumi-chan is Interested in Lesbian Brothels!

Asumi-chan is Interested in Lesbian Brothels! (  | talk | history | 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 GNG. Sources in article are database records, primary, name mentions. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Comic Yuri Hime as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 07:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are sources that can be found to prove its notability. SimonLagann ( talk) 14:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Draftify article could use more work to prove its notability. SimonLagann ( talk) 14:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    You initially said there are sources, if that is still the case can you please provide them? Per WP:NEXIST if sources exist then the article should be kept. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I searched for sources in English and Japanese and found them rather unsatisfactory. That's why I changed my mind on it. There was an article on AnimeCorner, but it wasn't about the series, it was about manga that the author of the article began reading in 2023. There was another one on Livedoor, but it was a list article about yuri series the author recommends. SimonLagann ( talk) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Comic Yuri Hime#Serialized works; I don't think this manga meets WP:NBOOK just yet. Link20XX ( talk) 04:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cornell 100+ MPG Team

Cornell 100+ MPG Team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Briefly entered a competition and got a smattering of coverage for it [32], but imo was a bit of a flash-in-the pan and there isn't enough coverage here to establish encyclopedic notability. [Should note that I attend Cornell, but have no connection to this project team] Eddie891 Talk Work 03:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Salem Urban Development Authority

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

The information in this article is already at Salem metropolitan area (India) but the creator objects to a redirect there so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra ( talk) 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So, kindly go through it, Metropolitan Area & Metropolitan Development Authority is different from each other.

Yes they are different from each other, but that does not mean that we need a separate article about each one. The information about this topic is already included in the article about the metropolitan area, so this is a WP:CFORK. Mccapra ( talk) 09:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I, thought, Same were followed in the articles that, I have mentioned above. In those articles too, contains more or less same informations. May I, know, is there any rules for such articles for existing, meanwhile, not for this one. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The rule is we don’t fork content, so if information is already in one article we don’t recreate it in another. The only reason to split info out from an existing article is to significantly expand it, which this one doesn’t. Otherwise we just create a redirect so anyone searching for information finds it easily. Mccapra ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
So, instead of nominating for deletion, you can tag the article as "need improvement". That may help to develop articles with additional informations. Visitors also can add some information with thier knowledge. But, still, I can't understand, what additional contents you had seen in the articles like Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Chennai Metropolitan Area. Can you explain is there any such special rules. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just another Municipal Development Authority.
There are 100 municipal corporations, 2100 Nagar Panchayats, and 1500 municipal councils in India 1
User4edits ( talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Ofcourse, 100 Municipal Corporation, 2100 Nagar Panchayats and 1500 municipal councils. But here, it is not Municipal Corporation or Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Council. It is Urban Development Authority. Not all those you have mentioned will not have such authority. Wikipedia may offers visitors regarding specific topics. So, this article may exist, while others are existing. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:NCORP, and without going into FALLACY, here are a few:
Just go to Google, and search * Development Authority, and you will get 100s of them. Thanks, User4edits ( talk) 05:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply
So what, Why can't create articles for them ? Wikipedia has articles for all the 1000s of cities wright ? So, is there any problem with articles for Development Authorities ? Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 08:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Star Mississippi,
Hope you are doing good.
Actually, I haven't got answered for my previous questions for my earlier defence. Kindly go through it, and make way for retain this article. Ungal Naan2.0 ( talk) 06:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
That is not the role of an administrator at AfD, and I don't have the subhect matter interest to act as an editor here. However the onus is on you who wants to retain it to find WP:CORP level sourcing, not anyone else. Star Mississippi 14:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet and no one has commented upon the nominator's suggestion of a Redirect closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion is a sign that sometimes folks only show up to an AFD discussion after several relistings so they can serve a useful purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of largest hotels in Europe

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

Appears to be original research. Links mostly reference the official hotel website. We already have List of largest hotels and I don't think the notability for a continental list is quite there. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Europe, Organizations, Travel and tourism, and .... Ajf773 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least for this list most of it wouldn't be on the main largest hotel list, which is limited to hotels with >3,000 rooms, and there's no real easy way to ascertain a hotel room count without the hotel group websites, as rooms can often be mothballed and be undercounted from municipal authorities and the like. Both use that sourcing and there's no issue as-is with either. Nate • ( chatter) 21:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Articles by continent are not usually seen as violating WP:CROSSCAT.
Wizmut ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:CROSSCAT is not the reason for deletion in this case. It's a case of both notability and original research. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Frivolous comment: I read the article title as List of largest holes in Europe :) Geschichte ( talk) 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, agree with nom that NLIST is failed, as none of the sources in the article, nor any I could find in a search, make this grouping. The topic of "largest hotels" is too niche to get multiple articles, unlike e.g. largest cities. Mach61 ( talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "autobiographies" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. M, Patrick (2023-08-21). "Top 5 Largest Hotels in Europe". Construction Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      The article notes:

      Of the total hotels in Europe, here are the top 5 largest. The list is based on the number of rooms.

      1. The Izmailovo Hotel in Russia (5,000 rooms)
      2. Barkhatnye Sezony Sportivny Kvartal in Russia (4,688 rooms)
      3. The Cosmos Hotel in Russia (1777 rooms)
      4. The Royal National Hotel in England (1630 rooms)
      5. The Gothia Towers in Sweden (1200 rooms)
    2. Tuin, Christel (2015-02-27). "Dit zijn de 5 grootste hotels van Europa" [These are the 5 largest hotels in Europe]. Hospitality Management (in Dutch). Uitgeverij PS. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.

      According to this page from the publisher Internet Archive, Hospitality Management is a Dutch trade magazine for the hotel industry that is published eight times a year.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow list of largest hotels in Europe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

    Construction Review appears to be unreliable Mach61 ( talk) 17:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Microteaching

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

I couldn't find sources to show this is a clear and notable term. Boleyn ( talk) 18:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Just a quick Google search turns up some sources. [33] [34] [35] [36] The Wikipedia article is really light on sources and citations, but this appears to be an issue with article and not the topic. Rjjiii ( talk) 07:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It is rare in 2024 to find an article that is potentially notable, and written in standard English, yet is so terrible and lacking sources, and possibly in violation of WP:COPYVIO, that it must be started from scratch. I would not oppose a userfy process, if someone else is willing to adopt this article. Yet another case of a disaster of an article that is beyond normal editing processes discovered by Boleyn. Bearian ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. There are hundreds of reliable sources. You find the article in poor shape? Edit it. That's what we do. Also, what does being "a clear and notable term" even mean? Central and Adams ( talk) 02:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, despite my own cv-revdel tag, as the term obviously meets GNG. Mach61 ( talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Quotesearching "microteaching" on google gives "about 844,000 results." The term is notable, just the article needs work. DarmaniLink ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Network Advertising Initiative

AfDs for this article:
Network Advertising Initiative (  | talk | history | 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 has some coverage and is borderline, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [37]. Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [38]. Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo ( talk) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that. NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations. The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources. But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be deleted. Npdoty ( talk) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating Keep bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process? After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html
https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/
Npdoty ( talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There appears to be sufficient sources available here and more online that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The available sources seem to establish enough notability. popodameron ⁠ talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep'Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search. Maxcreator ( talk) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bangla Desh – A Voice of a New Nation

Bangla Desh – A Voice of a New Nation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive searches found two reviews. Some may argue that this meets the letter of WP:NBOOK criterion #1, but it doesn't meet the spirit. The first review, after stripping away the bibliographic information, the direct quotation, and the reviewer's opinion of what was going on in Bangladesh at the time, boils down to two sentences:

Physical reality, as in the cover picture as well as in the poems inside, can be so accusing! ... There are a few [of the poets in the 48 page collection] who try desperately to try to sing of love and passion, but their words also turn to mourning. [39]

The second review is not as tissue thin, but is still only a single paragraph (150 words). [40]

Wikipedia aims to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works. It does not aim to be so indiscriminate as to include books about which so little has been written. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sheena M. Joyce

Sheena M. Joyce (  | talk | history | 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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO/ WP:GNG or have an obvious WP:ATD. Successful career, but not notable enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Surely an Emmy nomination, the best documentary prize at the Hollywood Film Awards and GLAAD Media Awards, IDFA PLAY Award for Best Music Documentary at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam, and Roger Ebert's assessment of her film as among the annual best constitute "significant critical attention" per WP:FILMMAKER. See here and here. CCS81 ( talk) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep That first reference above has no byline. It reads like a block of AI generated PR and nothing else. Next time, don't post these on Afd. There is lots of other coverage and recently. Her Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes is very high, indicating a quality film maker. scope_creep Talk 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I've been adding much-needed sourcing to the filmography. Very definitely notable in her field. — Maile ( talk) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Variety article and the Philadelphia Citizen piece, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a subjective list which is not covered as a group in secondary sources, failing the WP:NLIST. Let'srun ( talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification

2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification (  | talk | history | 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 competition seems to be ongoing so I think WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. The subject itself also fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this back to this year's cup have failed because we allow fans to edit, much to my chagrin. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Africa. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While this is early in the process, we have sourced information for qualification to a major senior-level international tournament that will begin next month. Certainly not WP:CRYSTALBALL or WP:TOOSOON. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - agree with Jkudlick, this is an impending, notable event, part of an established series (see Category:Africa Cup of Nations qualification). Giant Snowman 09:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Unlike European/UEFA competitions or competitions from other confederations which have articles created a fortnight before official start, the CAF competitions are more of battle of creations among African Wikipedians as I've seen since my account creation. Also the nominator posted a notice of reversion on my talk page on the count of notability, which I consider an anomaly, and stated it is ongoing. What is actually ongoing as at this writing is the Olympic qualification tournament. Intrisit ( talk) 10:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No reasons to remove, next matches to be played within 3 weeks, thus NOT too early Riktetta ( talk) 18:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems extremely obvious to me. The most recent tournament has now ended, the next fixtures in this qualification cycle are starting in a few weeks. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of World Rally Championship broadcasters

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Let'srun ( talk) 00:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_24&oldid=1211606208"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE