Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jihin Radzuan

Jihin Radzuan (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having singificant coverage from independent, relliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mention. All the sources found are either routine reports for fight announcements or fight results or interview pieces (not independent source) which can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Malaysia. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and completely lacks SIGCOV and GNG. Lethweimaster ( talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She fails to meet WP:NMMA. Being ranked as the #5 challenger in her promotion is not the same as being top 10 worldwide, especially when the champion is ranked 10th. The promotion she fights for is the primary source of references, with the rest being fight results and promotions. No evidence of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or of meeting WP:ANYBIO. Her kickboxing medal at the Southeast Asian Games came in a division where everyone won a medal and she lost her only fight. Nothing to show any SNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 03:52, 26 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! 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of fiction employing parallel universes

List of fiction employing parallel universes (  | talk | history | 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 have a decent-ish Parallel universes in fiction from which this was spun off, creating a bad list - one that fails WP:LISTN/ WP:NLIST, WP:OR as well as WP:IPC/ MOS:TRIVIA. WP:NOTTVTROPES - this is just, sadly, WP:FANCRUFTy list of randomly selected works that include this concept - some of them are pretty far fetched, too (ex. Avengers: Endgame which does not even mention this term in the article). The aforementioned Parallel universes in fiction article will do just fine (although it has some listy content that needs to be pruned). At best, per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to the main article - maybe someone will fine something from here useful for merging or otherwise one day. PS. On the off chance this is kept, it obviously needs a rename too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Out of Africa Wildlife Park

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

Lacks continuous coverage, little to no sources online, with the exception of ticket booking websites. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Pfeiffer, Lori Rohlk; Morris, Paul (2001). Insiders' Guide: Phoenix. Guilford, Connecticut: Insiders' Guide. p. 154. ISBN  1-57380-183-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Think of Out of Africa not as a zoo but as a small version of Sea World that substitutes exotic tigers for the killer whales. The big cats can be seen in natural habitats developed for them at the park as well as in an unrehearsed show called Tiger Splash. Yes, they romp in the water with staff members and perform various tricks. Species include white tigers and Bengals. There are nine animal shows in all, which give the park a chance to show off its other inhabitants, including lions, coatis, foxes, bears, cougars, wolves, pythons, and exotic birds. But Tiger Splash, usually performed once daily, is the most popular. The grounds also include a cafe and gift shop."

    2. Weir, Bill (2011) [2011]. Arizona (4 ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Traveler. p. 109. ISBN  978-1-4262-0713-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Big cats and other fauna in the Out of Africa Wildlife Park roam within near-natural enclosures. The animals housed in the 104-acre park reveal their behavior and personalities during "African Bush Safaris," wildlife preserve tours, and wildlife encounter demonstrations. For the exciting Tiger Splash, staffers get into a pool and coax tigers to join them and play with "prey" toys. Try to arrive early to make the most of your visit; allow at least four hours at the park. Take I-17 Exit 287, turn west and go 3 miles on Arizona 260 toward Cottonwood, then turn left at the traffic light onto Cherry Road."

    3. Wyman, Bill. "Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article gives the park one out of three stars. The article notes: "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. And zebras and giraffes and wildebeests, oh yes. That’s what you’ll encounter at this sprawling wildlife park between Camp Verde and Cottonwood. ... One of the park’s most popular attractions, especially with kids, is the Tiger Splash, in which big cats and their caretakers demonstrate predator-prey interactions in a large pool."

    4. Golfen, Bob (2003-06-18). "Going on Safari: Animal attraction plans move to more expansive home". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, founded Out of Africa 15 years ago on the Fort McDowell Reservation, north of Fountain Hills. The aim was to keep the animals in their natural states and to understand their behavior in terms of the logical results of nature and instinct. ... This is the last summer season for Out of Africa at its 16-acre location. Soon, construction will begin on a 125-acre site in Camp Verde that's designed to take the wildlife park from a local attraction to a national destination, complete with a hotel and two complete restaurants. The park will close at Fort McDowell next May 31, Harrison said. Then the staff will undertake the daunting task of transporting all the wild animals 100 miles north by truck. Fifteen tigers, 17 lions, a pair of giraffes, antelopes, African wart hogs, bears, wolves, a small herd of zebras, birds, monkeys, snakes, lizards and a huge African porcupine are among the animals that will be on the road."

    5. Naylor, Roger (2021-05-12). "Glamping, Airstreams, yurts and a caboose: How to reserve the coolest lodgings in Arizona". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "You don’t actually sleep with the lions on this glamping adventure, but it might feel that way if a throaty roar fills your tent in the night. Sometimes, the lions at Out of Africa Wildlife Park wake up hungry and just like everyone to know it. The Safari Village in Camp Verde consists of eight tents on the property of Out of Africa, lined up near the elands and wildebeests. The roomy tents measure 120 square feet and are furnished with beds, dresser, lighting, an ice chest and a propane heater."

    6. Naylor, Roger (2013-04-13). "Out of Africa Gives Visitors a Closer Look at Exotic Animals" (pages 1 and 2). The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Tiger Splash is the signature show of Out of Africa Wildlife Park in Camp Verde. It provides plenty of thrills for the crowd sitting on shaded bleachers."

      The article notes: "Nestled in the high desert of Camp Verde, 90 miles north of Phoenix, Out of Africa is home to 400 exotic animals, including dozens of large predators. The preserve is spread across 104 rolling acres in the Black Hills, a setting that bears a striking resemblance to many regions of Africa. The park began as a research project that Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, began in their home. Their first Out of Africa opened on 16 acres in Fountain Hills in 1988. They moved to Camp Verde in 2005. The larger property allowed for a greater number and diversity of animals, as well as larger habitats. The spacious habitats and proximity to animals provide a more intimate experience than one might expect."

    7. Harrington, Candy B. (Winter 2004). "Escape The Winter Blues In Phoenix And Scottsdale". Emerging Horizons. Vol. 7, no. 1. ProQuest  233398299.

      The article notes: "Another place to get a close-up look at wildlife is at the Out of Africa Wildlife Park ... located northeast of Scottsdale in Fountain Hills. It's just a 25-minute drive from the Sky Harbor Airport and it's a great place to spend the day. This is not your typical wildlife park. When you first enter you will notice a number of exotic animals roaming comfortably through their spacious enclosures, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The shows are quite unique, as the handlers encourage the animals to use their natural instincts. As you can imagine this produces some edge-of-your-seat moments, especially during the Tiger Splash show where the handlers actually become the prey. There's plenty of room up front for wheelchairs ..."

    8. Danz, Harold P. (1999). Cougar!. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press. pp. 37–39. ISBN  0-8040-1014-5. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Out of Africa Wildlife Park at Fountain Hills, Arizona, is an unusual wildlife exhibit that offers a somewhat different perspective on the cougar. Coowners Dean and Bobbi Harrison maintain more than twenty-five species of mammals, reptiles, and birds in a compound that attracts more than one hundred thousand visitors a year. Animals are both on display and in performance. In addition to white tigers, tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars, a caracal, servals, and bobcats, the Harrisons also have five cougars. A cougar is used in a “show” with two bears and three wolves. The objective of this mixed-species performance is to demonstrate that trained animals of different species can get along together. Although in the performances that I witnessed the cougar seemed somewhat diffident or aloof, ..."

    9. Hecht, Jon (2018-06-19). "Out of Africa wildlife park plans to expand, possibly double in size". Journal AZ. Larson Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Driving on State Route 260 between Camp Verde and Cottonwood, it can be hard to miss Out of Africa Wildlife Park. Full of exotic animals, the park takes up 103 acres of land, and has become a fixture of the lower Verde Valley. ... Out of Africa Wildlife Park moved to its current location from a smaller park on Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation east of Scottsdale. When park owners Dean and Prayeri Harrison relocated the park, they became involved with land developer Bill Jump, who is now a co-owner of the park. ... In the past several years, the park has also been toying with entertainment options beyond the park’s wildlife. Two years ago, a company installed a zipline throughout the park, and in the past year it added horseback rides and Jeep rides provided A Day In The West, a Sedona tour company."

    10. Reep, Erin (2004-05-11). "Out of Africa scrambling to relocate animals". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Harrison speaks gently to the animals. He is surprisingly upbeat for a man faced with the daunting task of relocating 300 wild animals, their habitats and other buildings from the park's 16-acre home off the Beeline Highway on the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to a 104-acre site near Camp Verde. Fort McDowell served the park an eviction notice May 5, stating it had until June 30 to vacate the property and restore it to its natural condition. The eviction came after Out of Africa advised the tribe it intended to leave the property and move to the new site."

    11. Roland, Rachel. "Take a Day Trip to Out of Africa Wildlife Park!". Arizona Foothills Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Recently our family took a fun trip to the Out of Africa Wildlife Park (whatever you do, do not call it a zoo). ... Once you pay your admission fee, ($36 for adults, $20 for children 3-12 years, under 3 are free), you are free to explore the park. However, I highly recommend you head straight for the Serengeti Safari Tour (you receive a ticket for this with your admission). On this tour, you are taken through Out Of Africa's Serengeti - a wide open space with many animals - giraffes, zebras, ostriches, antelope, Watusi cattle, and more! You get to experience this on an open aired bus or tram and the tour is narrated by the driver, who can be quite entertaining."

    12. "Best Safari Park: Lee G. Simmons Conservation Park and Safari wins". USA Today. 2019-05-03. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Situated in the picturesque Black Hills of Camp Verde, Arizona, Out of Africa occupies 100 acres of rolling hills where mammals, birds and reptiles from around the globe roam. Visitors can embark on a 40-minute safari through the park’s own Serengeti preserve or go behind the scenes with a member of the animal care team."

    13. Reep, Erin (2004-02-11). "Wildlife park not out of Fountain Hills yet". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Lions, bears, giraffes and other wildlife at Out of Africa Wildlife Park will have to wait quite a while longer before they can roam in a more spacious location. The park originally planned to move from its 16-acre site near Fountain Hills to a 104-acre property near Camp Verde this summer, said park president Dean Harrison."

    14. "Best Place To Hug A Hyena: Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Phoenix New Times. 2001-09-20. ProQuest  207457133. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Out of Africa is not a zoo or a circus, but it combines the best of both to teach us about animals. Its garden setting puts us mere feet from tigers, lions, bears and wolves -- the panther is so close we can smell its breath. Out of Africa -- for us, and for the animals -- is out of sight."

    15. Ropp, Thomas (1995-12-25). "A white (tiger) Christmas at Valley wildlife park". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "She and her husband Steve paid $300 Saturday to play for 15 minutes with two month-old white tiger cubs at Out Of Africa Wildlife Park near Fountain Hills. ... The 10-pound, blue-eyed tigers, making their public debut, were shown in the wildlife park's cougar habitat. The St. Jeans were the first to play with the cubs."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:38, 24 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. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alister De Bellotte

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

Playing football for a national team doesn't give automatic notability, so neither does coaching. This manager is covered in passing mentions only, failing the WP:SIGCOV guideline. I only found mentions such as this, and of course databases. Several/most biographical details are in the dark. Being a name in a list at Grenada national football team#Coaching history should suffice. Geschichte ( talk) 22:54, 20 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 merge‎ to Milky Way#Etymology and mythology. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of names for the Milky Way

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of names of the Ottoman Empire

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 20 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! 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kim Ho-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:47, 20 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. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Choi Won-nam

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:45, 20 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! 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Choi Hyon-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:41, 20 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! 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

João Castro Neves

João Castro Neves (  | talk | history | 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 GNG or SNG. Content is basically resume content written in a resume way. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. At first blush econoTimes looks lengthy but it has no author and a disclaimer by EconoTimes and appears to be flowerly self-written bio. Some concern that the creator has a total of 39 edits, nearly all on this person, the company they work for (3G capital) and articles on two other employees of 3G capital. North8000 ( talk) 21:28, 20 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Correspondences (journal)

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

Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable. Star Mississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The journal has significant coverage in four reliable, independent sources and thus passes WP:GNG. Schenkstroop ( talk) 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: in-passing mentions don't satisfy GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Well, this is a University post about the journal, they don't seem to be associated with the journal [1], I think it would be independent. I don't see the Univ. of Pennsylvania as being on the list of journal staff. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That looks like a standard call for submissions to me, certainly written by the journal staff or the guest editor for the special issue. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a piece of publicity, essentially just an ad written by the journal staff themselves. That UPenn agreed to publish it provides only the very slightest amount of support in favor of the journal's notability, maybe, but it's fundamentally inaccurate to call it a "University post about the journal". Brusquedandelion ( talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: Seems to be just enough with the sourcing found. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The consensus last time was delete (I'm assuming it was deleted but then recreated?) and hardly anything seems to have changed since then. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 15:36, 14 March 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! 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: The journal seems to have been consistently publishing for over ten years (see https://correspondencesjournal.com/), with roughly two issues per year. When I google "esotericism journal" it's a top hit. Whirlywyrd ( talk) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — Whirlywyrd ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment Having been around for some time is irrelevant (see WP:N). And if this is a "top hit" on Google, it should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss the journal in depth. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Looking at the article contents had me in the middle - seeing that this article has been listed for deletion before has made me lean towards delete, and spending quite some time searching for sources on both Google and EBSCO just looking for any hint of noteworthiness has not really done anything to move the needle in the other direction. Sleddog116 ( talk) 02:52, 28 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

InstallJammer

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

This article also fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The three sources provided in the article are solely from the official website of the software. I was unable to locate credible sources that provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the topic, which are necessary for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia ( talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 13 March 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) 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCT. I'm not sure what "the bank page" means in terms of a redirect. If there is a suitable redirect, I would support that. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:07, 28 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Epos Now

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

Just an SME that fails ncorp Kaptain Kebab Heart ( talk) 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In this context, it refers to Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the overwhelming majority of UK companies Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 14 March 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) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Here I found some of the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot ( talk) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as there are much more reliable sources than those cited in the current version of the page. The organization is pretty notable, per TechRadar and other media coverage. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 15:47, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chad Kultgen

AfDs for this article:
Chad Kultgen (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails WP:BIO. There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. The rest are all either reviews of his books, or minor article about being sued over a podcast. One or more of his books could possibly be considered notable, but notability is not inherited, so those articles need to be created separately. Also note this was deleted back in 2011 and re-created in 2012. I haven't seen the deleted version as the history is not merged. Iggy pop goes the weasel ( talk) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington. Shellwood ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Seems to pass AUTHOR with reviews [5], [6]. With the NY Times article, I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Plenty of articles about the George Carlin AI special, mentioning this person, and the lawsuit involved. Depending how it goes, could either be famous or infamous. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: widespread, active coverage going on with George Carlin. She was a fairy 02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. is evidence of a BEFORE failure; the NYT so rarely writes about people that no other RS is covering, the more prudent move is to assume you've missed something else and keep looking. Jclemens ( talk) 05:52, 21 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 List of Ireland women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Joanna Loughran

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Irish women's cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Joanna Loughran has played in a Women's T20 International match between two full member sides, fulfilling notability requirements for WP:OFFICIALCRICKET. CarnivalSorts ( talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CarnivalSorts: That just means that coverage is likely to exist for a player. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've added some more coverage from the Irish Independent and RTÉ. CarnivalSorts ( talk) 19:49, 20 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. Page is now SALTed. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Marlabs

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

Another (3rd) recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. Previous AfD: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marlabs_(2nd_nomination) 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt This company does not have any WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing is limited to interviews and press releases. I was unable to find anything other than press releases/churnalism by websites such as "PR Newswire." Please note the Forbes article is by the CEO so it does not count as secondary coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt both Marlabs and Marlabs LLC : A new instance on a previously deleted topic, supported by a summary and announcement-based coverage of routine company history, falling under WP: ORGTRIV. I see no reason to set aside the previous AfD decisions. Given this 3rd AfD, plus previous G11 deletions, if this current instance is deleted, it also seems appropriate to salt the variant names. AllyD ( talk) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a completely different from previous versions which are so old. Now it is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources, passes GNG. Graze Wood ( talk) 13:35, 26 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 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

K. R. L. Thangavel

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

Candidate for the upcoming election in India, fails WP:NPOL. No other apparent claim to notability. There has been a general consensus that Wikipedia is not a publicity forum for election candidates. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of him online in English or Tamil (கே.ஆர்.எல்.தங்கவேல்} was passing mentions of him in routine coverage of candidates, and not even an interview with him about his candidacy. Wikishovel ( talk) 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Karthick ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

:Delete Karthick ( talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Iamakarthick we are all only allowed one vote. She was a fairy 02:49, 21 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. A veritable army of likely canvassed/paid/SPA/COI/socks has been mobilized to show up here and add their !vote, all on the Delete side. But rather than engage in speculation about who is a legitimate, unbiased participant in good standing and who isn't, most of these Delete views can be discarded based on their lack of reliance on P&G. This leaves us with a clear consensus to keep the article. For the avoidance of doubt: claims about libel or defamation should be emailed to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. We will not engage in discussing legal accusations across Wikipedia pages. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BNN Breaking

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

Thoroughly checked the page and saw a lot of editing dispute. I guess this article does not meet the Notability criteria. The lead section does not have any citation. Few references are used many times. The article gives me impression that it is not written in neutral language. HxxxM07 ( talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I would say it passes WP:GNG: there is significant coverage in multiple indepedent sources, including Business Insider, multiple local newspapers, and an Irish national newspaper (though perhaps none of them have consensus as reliable sources--BI doesn't have a consensus ( WP:BI) and none of the others are major news outlets). The lead section not having citations is fine, as the points are cited in the article body (as per MOS:LEAD). I would not advocate deletion on an article for not meeting WP:NPOV, as the article could be improved to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Hong Kong, and United States of America. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't have an opinion atm, but condense and merge to Gurbaksh Chahal is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete If this article and company is notable no page on the platform should be deleted. I just saw the article's history and its already messed up. As per my experience here the company is not having a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just same articles taking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff and the whole article is rather opinion than an encyclopedia material. I will still try to find and add if any reliable source with indepth coverage about the compnay exists. NatalieTT ( talk) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — NatalieTT ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Please note that this could potentially be a case of a bad-faith nomination, as the founder of BNN Breaking has a long history of hiring freelancers to whitewash their pages. Upon examining the history of this article, there seem to be some attempts to remove the controversial part. Please mail me or paid-en queue for more details. GSS  💬 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I would vote Keep, except I guess I should recuse myself since I (along with @ Lepricavark) was mentioned by name on a BNN Breaking article critical of Wikipedia: [7]. I think we should keep the article for the benefit of people who want to determine whether a news site is bogus or not. Chisme ( talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Like GSS, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nomination in light of Chahal's extensive history of chicanery. If he doesn't like the way that his organization is covered in this article, maybe he should clean up his clearly dirty organization. Unfortunately for him, being crooked is not a safeguard against being notable. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Lepricavark: I have a feeling that this AfD is going to attract some suspicious delete voters, similar to user NatalieTT, who was inactive for over 3 months and suddenly became active to !vote here. GSS  💬 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, that would be par for the course given prior abuses at the Chahal article. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Chisme, did you check the tags at the end of the article text? They're quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I saw it @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång written; Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David Gerard, Ravensfire, and DanielMichaelPerry. It's quite funny though! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think there's just enough sources, which span a period of several years, that the article warrants keeping. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: bnn breaking is a horrible news source. that doesn't mean they are not notable, there is sufficient coverage. She was a fairy 02:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • comment I avoid contributing to such situations but here something is cooking. I reported a lot of socks and people silently who try to prepare a case against a specific topic or shed personal agendas rather than based on the policy. I believe a lot of paid editing is involved here and the article may have been created to secure a place on Wikipedia to get more hype. I will send the evidence to concerned authorities as well. I can see that only San Francisco Chronicle and related sub sites which are not even in the list of reliable sources listed have interest in this non-notable company that is not even a news site but a personal blog with pathetic publicity stunt type of news coverage used as click baits. I'm on a clear side on Delete but I will keep an eye out and see if someone shows more coverage instead of bombarding it with keeps. The Informer Sally ( talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — The Informer Sally ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • delete It really seems that this article is meant to defame and slander a particular person. After properly going the edit history I found that it seems the whole intention of this article to ensure bad name directed towards 1 person. I hereby change the vote to deletion, as soon as possible. 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)~ Bonadart ( talk) — Bonadart ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete/Comment I was searching for something on Google and landed here in search of information. I edited and even created pages in the past but then left because even after spending months to create pages they were removed for being 'non-notable' and after reading the article in question and reading the points here I felt I should leave my analysis as well. There's not a single news article on Google news section that discusses the subject in detail check here [8]. It doesn't meet WP:GNG even. G19US ( talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — G19US ( talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • This is not a very well-formed nomination for deletion (a lead doesn't need citations...), and the multiple accounts that just show up here, arguing that it's somehow defamation, that's more than a little odd. Plus, there is sourcing, of course, even though much of it is negative. Is it enough to keep? Should it be merged into the owner's bio? I don't really know, or care, but it's pretty clear that there are outside interests here with these articles, as this also shows. Drmies ( talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Thoroughly checked the sources, and I don't see any in-depth coverage about the subject. The cited sources are emphasizing the event in particular rather than subject itself, and if exclude those sources there left nothing. Also, other than San Francisco Chronicle, Business Insider, the cited sources are not that much reliable. Atighot ( talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Atighot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep, multiple sources over multiple years describe this website. Also want closer to note the wave of 'delete' votes from accounts that have made little edits outside this topic, considering the founder's history of recruiting paid editors. wizzito | say hello! 00:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article needs to be around to keep receipts on the Internet to inform the populace on what BNN Breaking is doing. It is notable and has been covered by multiple RS. The wave of "delete" comments also seems suspicious given BNN Breaking's own attempts itself to whitewash this article. Having failed that, I believe their new tactic is to get the article about BNN Breaking deleted. You can read about their attempts here on their site, with an article bashing Wikipedia: BNN Breaking EXCLUSIVE: The Dark Side of Wikipedia - The Billion-Dollar Web of Deception, Lies & Elite Manipulation. Merge with the founder's article is no good. This needs to have its own article to inform and educate the public. - Object404 ( talk) 06:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Dropping my two cents here, this page seems to have been created to defame the entity. The editing done on this page seems to be targeted to tarnish the image of the company and to destabilize the article itself. As per my experience here, the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just the same articles talking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff, and the whole article is rather an opinion than encyclopedia material. I have not encountered any Wikipedia article about a media company—or any company, for that matter—framed in such a manner that it meets inclusion criteria. Additionally, a preliminary search revealed a lack of visibility on Google, casting further doubt on the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  • "the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source" -> This is a lie. The subject is covered in-depth by The San Francisco Standard.
    - Object404 ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I nominated this article for deletion only because it lacks significant coverage in my opinion. Many statements are backed by websites that cannot be considered as trustable. I highly suggest the cleanup of this article to maintain Wikipedia standard if it is kept. Vital information should not backed by blog article, instead please use trustable sources if there is any. M66JX ( talk) 08:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You are asking us to believe that after nearly a month of inactivity which was preceded by a warning that you appeared to be making undisclosed paid contributions, upon your return you coincidentally just happened to stumble across this article and nominate it for deletion. And the fact that this article is about a company founded by a man with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors on his own biography is yet another coincidence because you totally weren't paid for this nomination. I don't believe you. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Existing sources show enough coverage of BNN to meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep like Chisme, I had intended to recuse myself from this AfD. However, since those affiliated with the subject have shown no compunctions against pursuing their conflict of interest via poorly-disguised paid !votes, I will formally register my !vote in favor of keeping the article. The sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG whether Gurbaksh Chahal likes it or not. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Strongly agreed with Object404. Also, all delete votes seem so suspicious and funny to see all of the voters just awaken from hyper inactivity all of a sudden and come to Wikipedia to vote on deleting an article. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article does note meet WP:NORG.i think this article shoun't be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcruexz ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whereas, the Wikipedia article, bnn breaking exhibits a tone that suggests a close relationship between the writer/editor and the subject matter. The article also fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's significance, as single references is used multiple times. Therefore, BNN Breaking violates Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and notability. Palucy ( talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Palucy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and cealrly looks like promotional article or paid article. Thatbombayboy ( talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Thatbombayboy ( talk) • reply
  • Delete this artical looks like act of defamation under Libel and the nature of the edits gives the impression that editor have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but editor have not complied with [ mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.] Kingaayaan ( talk) 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Kingaayaan ( talk) • reply
    Oh, the irony. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 17:04, 27 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. ✗ plicit 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keenan Prochnow

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has not won a medal at any international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 20 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 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Freshwater Christian College

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and updated one reference and added another; but am not seeing enough reliable, independent and significant coverage for the school to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:51, 20 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals

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

Primarily, this page was created by an editor who has been banned for engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India, where they were actually discovered. Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages. Charlie ( talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it. Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK. Crystalholm ( talk) 16:21, 20 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 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jordan Murch

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 15:30, 20 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 Cookie Monster 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Govind Dholakia

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

Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's Notability of Politicians guideline ( WP:NPOL). Nominated to the Rajya Sabha but not elected, and has not yet taken on the role. Remaining content is promotional in nature ( WP:NEWSORGINDIA), including his autobiography. Charlie ( talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie ( talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Gujarat. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Members-elect to an WP:NPOL-passing office pass NPOL. This source confirms he was elected. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree, we can make MP-elect articles per NPOL clause. Read this, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️( 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is a member-elect of the Rajya Sabha, so obviously meets WP:NPOL #1. The article needs improvement and cleaning up, not deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw and Keep Passes WP:NPOL criterion 1 for the member-elect. Also, the reference from The Hindu, shared by Curbon7 and added by me, satisfies the requirements of WP:THREE; which also dispelled my uncertainty regarding his appointment through election, as I had previously assumed it was merely a nomination. Charlie ( talk) 03:15, 21 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Weinstein effect

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

This article is full of good content that should be on Wikipedia. However, a lot of the content in this article feels like it would make more sense as part of articles on #MeToo, and would improve those articles and provide context. I feel this article doesn't really have a reason to stand on it's own, especially since the "Weinstein effect" isn't really a well defined term even in this article and has had limited usage. Hence, I think it may make more sense to merge this with /info/en/?search=MeToo_movement. (This is my second AfD nomination, I hope I'm doing this right). Update: I took a look at the previous AfD discussion, with over seven years since the last nomination, it seems that time has made this a case of WP: NEO. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, and Sexuality and gender. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Gonna be bold here: Snow close. The articles in question, Weinstein effect and MeToo movement should be edited appropriately, nothing to delete here. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Using AfD to propose a merge and redirect like this isn't particularly abnormal (the merge proposal process, which would be the alternative, is seen as largely broken). The nominator made an argument that can be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, so I don't see a need for a snow close. Sdkb  talk 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can't disagree on your view. There obviously are alternative ways of dealing with a problem like the issue at hand, I for one would rather get in touch with significant contributors and seek an opinion. However, if it's the D in AfD that's the case here, and concerning the D I do see a close (okay maybe not necessarily a snow but it felt like a snow moment at first instinct) because there's other things to consider here. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep if not snowball, the article is about an event that is still remembered to this day by regular people and has tons of reliable sources on it. Jeanette the Porn Chat Star Martin ( aqui) 05:53, 21 March, 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I agree with the comments of User:JeanetteMartin above, and with the result of the first afd. While some some cleanup of the article may be in order, I can see no compelling reason for deletion or merging. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The first AfD was no closed with no prejudice against a merger. And "no compelling reason" isn't a rebuttal to the argument that the OP made. That argument is about scope, so to refute it you need to show that the two pages have sufficiently different scopes that it makes sense to present them separately. As a closer, I would discount the tons of reliable sources comments, which would speak to a notability challenge not being made here. For the folks in the back: Notability is not the only reason that a page can be unsuitable. I'm disappointed with the quality of the discussion so far. Sdkb  talk 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I want to second the argument here, this isn't a notability discussion, this is about whether the information in the article overlaps with already written content on Wikipedia. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A well-referenced article for a concept that continues to have impact. Toughpigs ( talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article describes it a Weinstein Effect as "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," then proceeds to list only one example (the #MeToo movement), it should either be completely reworked to talk about other examples that do not follow from or are adjacent to #MeToo, or it should be merged with the article about the #MeToo if it is just another name for the movement. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 23:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The term is covered in USA Today, CBS News and others. Perfectstrangerz ( talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but in the context of the #MeToo movement, not really outside of it. This article frankly needs to be more clear on what it is. Is it "fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal"? Or is it "the social repercussions of movements that expose powerful people (only in cases of sexual harassment? not cases of sexual harassment?)"? Or is it just "a part of the #MeToo movement"? Frankly, some of these provide cases for keeping the article, which is fine, but in that case, we better make it very clear what the article is about. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That comment makes for a very confusing rationale for deletion. It seems like you're arguing for a merge with MeToo movement (or possibly several related pages, per your original statement), but you've also suggested that you're not sure whether it entirely overlaps with MeToo.
    I would suggest that an Articles for Deletion discussion is not the best format to make this determination. This is a problem that can only be solved by careful analysis and thoughtful editing, and you are apparently the person who's most invested in figuring it out. AfD participants are going to treat this like an AfD nomination. You're posing a more complex question, which is probably best explored as a bold merge attempt. Toughpigs ( talk) 04:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    To be honest, the reason I made the request is because I felt that deleting the article (and transferring some of its content) would be the cleanest solution, (and my preferred solution). I'm not good at merge attempts, but if you think that would be a better approach, feel free to make one! I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Allan Nonymous I don't want to criticise You here, after all we're all learning as we go, but bringing the article to the deletion pages seems like you needed a forum for comment on what to do with the articles. There should be another way to seek comments on articles on WP, but I don't know if there is one. Maybe contacting relevant wikiprojects or significant contributors? @ Toughpigs my thoughts exactly. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge content into the #MeToo article and Harvey Weinstein BLP. As Allan Nonymous said, the first line of the article title, that the Weinstein Effect is "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," isn't well supported. Describing it as a global trend known by that name that persists into the present doesn't seem accurate. #MeToo captures it better.-- FeralOink ( talk) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, more so as of today than ever. Since this was nominated, this has been in the news overnight in connection with P. Diddy's absconding from the Federal (United States) authorities. It's as if it's an ongoing event with a long legacy. Oh wait .... See WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 15:47, 26 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. ✗ plicit 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Radio Broadgreen

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

Another closed-circuit hospital radio station which does not meet WP:BASIC. Article completely unsourced and research does not reveal much (if any) coverage, other than a single event in 2016 which attracted some offbeat news coverage [12]. Flip Format ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unfortunately there are many, many hundreds of completely unsourced, non-notable radio station articles (of which this is one) on Wikipedia due to previous policy effectively suggesting all radio stations were inherently notable. While it is a shame to see people's work be deleted, without sources we have no credibility, we effectively become a social media site. It's extraordinary how many of these articles have existed for 10-20 years with literally no sources. I also note that the page was specifically created to "advertise the station as much as possible" AusLondonder ( talk) 17:58, 20 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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus since no clear consensus established after a month of discussion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Talafi

Talafi (  | talk | history | 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:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2012. Minor awards DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 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) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Referencing is a bit low but still can be kept as stub as Pakistani dramas from that time has similar referencing from primary sources mostly. Showbiz news websites were very few back then, even very few newspapers maintained efficiently online presence. Muneebll ( talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 March 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) 14:42, 20 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. I hope these sources can find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Peter Nguyen Van Hung

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

Possible cross-wiki spam, noticed some 15 years ago already. I don't see notability; he is an activist but without major achievements. Nadzik ( talk) 10:15, 13 March 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) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: Mentioned in a few articles [13], [14], with probably the best here [15], as human rights activist. I think we have just enough basic coverage about the person. A mention here [16] Oaktree b ( talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Taipei Times, The Diplomat and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:54, 24 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 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

St. Berks

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

Article cites no sources; sources difficult/impossible to find, clearly not notable Personhumanperson ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Personhumanperson ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I cannot find a single source online about this, from the BBC, on archive.org, or otherwise, which is odd as the main significance of it seems to be that it was the first BBC Digital Commission. I wonder if this article is pure fabrication, or if information about the show has just been lost to time (or if anyone can dig up a source on it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Great piece of creative writing. Zero available evidence this series even existed; all indicators point towards the article creator and main contributing editor being on some sort of hoax. (for reference - see the first ever edit by the creator of this article [17]; the plot itself appears - erm - far fetched unless as a surreal comedy - NOTHERE may well apply). Resonant Distortion 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think we've got a new one for the WP:HOAXLIST for sure, so 'congratulations' to Dickpiggot ( talk · contribs) for getting this just short of the eighteen-year mark AND somehow not getting immediately blocked. Nate • ( chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Congratulations to Personhumanperson on spotting this. It's actually incredible how many articles have been around 10-20 years with zero sources, particularly in the radio topic area. There's a lot of cleaning up to do to. Congratulations also to the creator for managing to create a hoax unnoticed for going on two decades. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    What amazes me so much is that, looking at the page history, it was visited and touched by so many experienced users, and yet none of them caught on. Serious props to the guy, who created a hoax so believable that even well-known users missed it. Personhumanperson ( talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    All editors really need to be much more alert and active regarding wholly unsourced articles. It's damaging to our credibility as an encyclopedia. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing Online. Wow, a Hoax! 🍪 Cookie Monster 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete: if the series had been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 or BBC 7 (now BBC Radio 4 Extra) it would have an entry in the BBC Genome Project, and it doesn't. : Flip Format ( talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No sources and poorly written. It doesn't even mention dates as to when it was ran, even if it is real. But this whole thing could be hoax. Perfectstrangerz ( talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wonder if creator's name is a reference to Richard Pigott, an Irish journalist known for creating a forgery... AusLondonder ( talk) 04:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Does this qualify for G3?🍪 Cookie Monster 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikidata item doesn't contain anything meaningful too. Killarnee ( talk) 19:22, 24 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 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Raagini Sutradhar

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR, only minor roles so far. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just routine syndicated movie promotion, and a few brief articles about her wedding to a director. This Times of India article cited says she was cast in Lage Prema Nazar in 2021, but I can't find a reliable source to verify that she appeared in the released film. Unsourced claims about her early life (now removed) and improperly sourced promotional photo suggest undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel ( talk) 12:21, 20 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

3:16 game

AfDs for this article:
3:16 game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A similarly named page (different capitalization) was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game. This article largely duplicates what is already at Tim Tebow. The section 3:16 game § Background is covered at Tim Tebow § "The Tebow Rule" , and 3:16 game § Statistical coincidences is at the game's coverage at Tim Tebow § 2011 season.

The notability guideline WP:NSPORTSEVENT reads:

Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

WP:NOTABILITY states:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio, which has the relevant background of his college references to 3:16. For the NFL game itself, other pages this topic overlaps with, aside from Tebow's bio, are 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. — Bagumba ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This game can be covered at the Tebow article and in the two team-season articles. Cbl62 ( talk) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. This article is honestly mostly just trivia. If it wasn't for Tebow being a big religious guy this is just something that would be written about once a decade that makes people go "... huh. Neat." Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per G4. Delete per nom. No actual notability other than this weird coincidence.🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reverted, per what I said in the edit summary: "G4 says 'sufficiently identical copies', doubtful since there's [a source] from 2017 here and the afd was 9!! years ago. also, article got a green tick for dyk and is on-hold at GAN." It's better to let the AfD run its course. Skyshifter talk 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok, changing my response to reflect that. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as pure trivia, no lasting impact; anything relevant can be inserted into parent articles. Also fails WP:LASTING; all, save a couple, of the sources provided are from 2012, and if we customize our search of newsoutlets to establish when it was last discussed: it hasn't been, since 2020 at least. And they're not even mentions, let alone in-depth discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not notable for standalone inclusion. Some content can be merged into parent articles as explained above (though I oppose any redirect of this title). I agree that G4 speedy does not apply. Frank Anchor 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Changed to keep per the sources added by Beaniefan, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There are more sources, but I don't want to flood the page. The point is, lots of sourcing, and this is how we determine notability. The nom is correct there is some existing coverage elsewhere on WP. That's how it should work, limited coverage in other articles, all pointing to this the main article that has the most depth of detail, that doesn't require the reader to navigate around to piece information together. -- Green C 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You're either being intentionally dishonest or simply careless. The first of these sources I happened to check (the third one, sports fans 2.0, p30) makes absolutely no mention of this game. This is entirely about Rollen Stewart (that guy who dressed up in a clown wig with John 3:16 signs at games). I stopped looking after that due to a loss of trust. Is there any particular reason we should take any of your other sources seriously? Do any of them discuss the game in depth? 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Just on a hunch, I checked the other sources. Not a SINGLE ONE of these mentions the topic of the article. I strongly suggest you strike your comment as egregiously misleading. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've not checked the others properly but on the last one, p.116 mentions the eye black and the start of the following chapter is where the January 8, 2012, game is covered. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A meaningless statistical coincidence, not a significant or notable game. Since Tebow made a deal about it, it can be mentioned/merged in his own article where there's already a relevant section that includes the background – it's his own broader evokation of 3:16 that has received the coverage. The sources above repeat the same statistics but have a greater focus on Tebow's use of 3:16 in general and do not warrant a standalone article as if this game itself were notable. Reywas92 Talk 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. Skyshifter talk 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I think the focus on these sources is more about Tebow's use of 3:16 than this game specifically, and per WP:NOPAGE this can be covered better in the main article. The article has irrelevant details like Roethlisberger's interception, and Hernandez's use of it would be related to Tebow's legacy not that of this game. Reywas92 Talk 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We are working through the Talk:3:16 game/GA1. I believe it will look and feel more encyclopedic as the review gets satisfied. It seems to be something that is widely noted in the press.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is ridiculous. Who scored what points and who won the coin toss are totally irrelevant to any of the coverage here. Even more ridiculous that you're doing your own OR and finding more arbitrary coincidences. Nothing about the game itself – which is covered at 2011–12_NFL_playoffs#AFC:_Denver_Broncos_29,_Pittsburgh_Steelers_23_(OT) – is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There was some attention for the statistical coincidence, but all of the background, significance, legacy is relevant to Tebow himself and his extended use of 3:16, not the game in particular. A topic for " Tim Tebow and 3:16" or " The Tebow Rule" makes more sense to expand on it as whole than to have a page like this, but stripping the impertinent details and duplication leaves just enough to merge. Reywas92 Talk 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling. Core reason for deletion ("it's covered elsewhere") is relatively weak in the first place: that's a great reason for an editorial discussion on the talk page, not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met. Jclemens ( talk) 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    ...not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met: Incorrect. WP:DEL-REASON No. 5 reads:

    Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

    The Wikipedia:Content forks guideline advises (emphasis added)

    A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.

    This is a fork of the aforementioned sections already at Tim Tebow. — Bagumba ( talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you explain how WP:PROPERSPLIT is failed by this article? Jclemens ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:PROPERSPLIT in an informational how-to page. It is not a guideline. An actual guideline is WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

    In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article
    ...
    It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.

    WP:NSPORTSEVENT says similar:

    For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted.

    90+% of the context is already at Tebow's bio. Anything usesful, aside from the WP:NOTDIARY content, can be merged.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Has any of the "Keep" voters addressed WP:NOTABILITY? Because this page is mostly just trivia and a weird coincidence, not actually something that's very notable. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    My comment "The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" is a reference to WP:GNG. Skyshifter talk 11:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling." Did you even look at GreenC's? Not a single one of them even mentions the article topic in passing, let alone in depth! 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're right, actually. I did go back and look at GreenC's in depth and your critiques are fair. Lightburst's seem fine, unless I'm missing something there? Jclemens ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject is notable because (per the general notability guideline) "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability discussion also says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Some lasting coverage of the game I located:
  • BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's and Lightburst's sources, there is plenty of lasting coverage to meet GNG. And there was more to the game than what would be appropriate to cover in the Tim Tebow article. And there was more to the game than simply the 3:16 coincidences. For example, as mentioned in at least one of BeanieFan11's sources (but not I believe in the article as it stands now), it was the first overtime playoff game played under the new rules under which the game would not end in sudden death on a field goal on the first possession. Rlendog ( talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the sources given in the article and in this discussion show enduring notability of the game. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There appears to be enough sources and content on this game to warrant a stand-alone article. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Lightburst and BeanieFan11 that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan11. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 01:11, 26 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. I believe the nomination has been withdrawn and consensus is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Gukjeong chumyo

Gukjeong chumyo (  | talk | history | 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 identify any sources on Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Books. General search also brings up nothing that can establish notability. There may be information that can establish notability in Korean. If notability can't be established then content could be merged with Byeon Sang-byeok Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Animal, Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, it is sourced via pamphlet to its holding museum. Artworks on Wikipedia are considered to have notability if they have a museum source. It is by famous Korean artist Byeon Sang-byeok, so the article's existence here since 2009 has enhanced Wikipedia's Korean art collection. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a link to that guideline? I couldn't find any art specific notability guidelines. Traumnovelle ( talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge It's a very Korean painting that has always been in Korea, so an absence of web sources in English (but using a Korean title, presumably) means very little indeed. We only seem to have about a dozen articles on individual Korean paintings, which is far too few, given their distinctive and old tradition. Byeon Sang-byeok, the artist, is a significant figure, with one only one other article on an individual work. I don't doubt there are lots of sources in Korean; perhaps someone from the Korean project can find some. Johnbod ( talk) 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong keep and no merge. Sufficient individual notability in Korean language [18] ( Kansong Art Museum), [19] ( Kyunghyang Shinmun), [20] ( The Dong-a Ilbo), and more. I'm sure it's covered extensively in print books on art too. toobigtokale ( talk) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If you're familiar with Korean could you add these into the article? Traumnovelle ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I can quickly put some stuff in; my to-do list is pretty long so I want to prioritize other major articles if that makes sense. Lot of important missing info about Korea on Wikipedia toobigtokale ( talk) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I'll take your word that the sources you've provided establish notability and change my stance to keep/withdraw the nomination. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:55, 21 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 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Morrisville killings

Morrisville killings (  | talk | history | 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 seem to meet WP:EVENTCRIT; as listed there [r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. All the references seem to merely report what happened in this awful thing, but there is no wider/long-term significance. Happy days, ~ Lindsay H ello 09:57, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Domestic killings are not uncommon and are not inherently notable. Sourcing doesn't seem to exist beyond reporting of the sequence of events as they happened. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:40, 24 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 no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership

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

Does not seem notable. Article cites three outlets, which I've machine translated. All article are fluff pieces on the subject, which is fine and can help constitute notability, but Emek seems wholly unreliable. Ynet is probably reliable. I would lean unreliable with Mida. Remsense 诉 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm wondering what sort of notability one looks for in a school. Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate the bar is set at notability within one's field and how high is that bar for "the field of schools"? Are only Harvard and Juilliard notable because they are in the news whenever some famous alumnus is appointed to SCOTUS or wins an Oscar? Initially, it appears that one can make a good argument that since other similarly notable schools have no article, then this should also have no article, but then maybe the WP:Be bold rule applies? So there's a bad article or two. I found another good article demonstrating that a) this school exists and that b) it's written about online and in newspapers and serves a role in society and in IDF military preparedness. 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @ DRosenbach: it sounds like you were reading WP:NPROF which covers people in academia. Schools are covered under WP:GNG or if the institution is for-profit then the GNG WP:NCORP sourcing guidelines might come into play. See WP:NSCHOOL. S0091 ( talk) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 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 IDBI Bank. ✗ plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IDBI Capital

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

Unsourced, written like a LinkedIn page, can't find anything on Google BrigadierG ( talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 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! 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Woodgrove Retirement Village

Woodgrove Retirement Village (  | talk | history | 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 indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But Zoglophie, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it. Elemimele ( talk) 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie •talk• 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    fair enough! Elemimele ( talk) 14:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Really just a housing development, we delete those all the time. James.folsom ( talk) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Housing developments are essentially businesses rather than municipalities, and need to pass WP:NBUSINESS. We have no evidence that this one does. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication of notability, sources are nothing more than directory listings and churnalism. -- Kinu  t/ c 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources present or found to establish notability. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence it passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG more broadly, or WP:NBUSINESS. Specifically, it fails my longstanding standards for estates of this type, because its far too small to be per se notable. Bearian ( talk) 15:52, 26 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 Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro)

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro) (  | talk | history | 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 should be a redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro); as an unopened subway station with no secondary coverage (or references at all), it fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL, but the WP:BLAR has been repeatedly reverted, so here we are. ~ A412 talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

MDTA Mahbatul Ulum

MDTA Mahbatul Ulum (  | talk | history | 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:NONPROFIT guidelines state that organizations, including schools, must meet specific criteria. Firstly, their activities should have a national or international scope. Secondly, the organization must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. However, in the case of this school, there are only two references available, and they do not directly pertain to the school. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the school is known nationally. Ckfasdf ( talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I cannot find sources about the school in a web search, hence there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Redtree21 ( talk) 07:56, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Green Globe Company Standard

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

Promotional article of a non-notable certification program. Largely unsourced and does not seem to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Most sources I can find are commercial sources that do not meet WP:RS, specifically websites of other companies with the certification that are providing customer-oriented information about it. Redtree21 ( talk) 08:02, 20 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. Thanks to User:Kuru for their comments. This probably could have been closed without a relist. Paid editors are becoming more sophisticated. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Manhattan Book Group

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

"Contributor Content" blogs fail WP:RELY, and thus fail ncorp. She was a fairy 06:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a fact. The blog post is written by a brand marketing 'consultant' (First North Marketing), and has a clear disclaimer: ""Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY network were not involved in the creation of this content". USA Today isn't going to add silly adcopy to professional article like "a singular entity stands out as a symbol of innovation and creativity" or "this independent publishing house is breaking conventions, transforming the publishing landscape, and providing unparalleled opportunities for authors." That's just in the first paragraph; the rest is silly puffery. This is utter, amateur-hour garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Borderline Keep for me due to the Mariel Hemingway connection. Found this article. I know we don’t generally use YouTube as a source, but a video of Mariel endorsing Manhattan Book Group does exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CE80:E280:2517:F719:A387:A11 ( talk) 09:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
'marketsherald' is Hudson Coldblue blackhat SEO/PR farm pretending to be a news site. Same farm as the 'hudsonweekly' blackhat ref added by you to the article. Please note that you only get one vote per person; cycling to another IP on the same /64 in New Hampshire does not make you a new entity. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete company not notable and no source for notability found. Powerviki ( talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Seems notable based on news sources found in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.62.210 ( talk) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You added another blackhat SEO dump site, an advertorial on a PR site, and the same press release. As this "company" has been heavily engaged in paid placement and PR efforts, you'll need to dig harder to find actual reliable sources. I was not able to locate anything remotely notable. Frankly, the only keeps are a new COI editor, and two IPs - one of which is located in the same city as the group that runs the subject of the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a single source meets GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, not marketing PR and spin. HighKing ++ 21:59, 23 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! 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Al-Ishlah Mosque, Bengkalis

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:NBUILDING. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable article. Attempted to PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock/blocked editor). Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 20 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 TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

TAROM Flight 381

TAROM Flight 381 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One, the incident is fairly routine. Two, the only source is a user-contributed wiki, which, you know, isn’t quite a reliable source. — Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 20 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! 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alvino Kusumabrata

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:JOURNALIST. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 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! 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Shayamal Vallabhjee

Shayamal Vallabhjee (  | talk | history | 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 available sources include passing mentions, interviews, and profiles, although some lack reliability. Notably, there's insufficient substantial coverage from reputable third-party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Consequently, it fails to meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It's crucial to remember that notability isn't inherited, meaning that having notable clients doesn't automatically confer notability. GSS  💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Damian Conway

Damian Conway (  | talk | history | 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 could not find significant coverage of him to meet WP:BIO. Also does not meet WP:PROF, google scholar comes up with a namesake who is an expert in sexual health. LibStar ( talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are two claims to notability I looked at carefully. That he is an author, and that he is the three time winner of the Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility. I also considered NPROF but that one is a clear fail. So looking at these others, I looked up the Larry Wall Award, and was rather surprised that most hits were talking about Conway, the three times winner. I could only find one other winner [22] and this posting explains why [23]. In any case the award is just a Perl conference award [24] and I don't think this is significant enough to confer notability. So the other guideline I looked at was WP:NAUTHOR where there are two books that he has authored (and one he has contributed to). One of these has a page. Perl Best Practices is a stub article. The book has a number of reviews I could find, although the quality of reviews would need assessment. So is it a notable book?
My reason for not yet making this a !vote is that I would consider a WP:ATD such as a redirect, but it is not clear whether the book is notable, in which case the best outcome of this AfD would be to merge content here with the book stub (in a section on the author). If the book is of marginal notability, might it actually be better to redirect that stub here? Or if the book has no notability at all, maybe that should be deleted too. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Perl Best Practices book was a major publication and inspired several modules based on it. Perl is no longer widely used for programming, which is why references are a bit dated. But Damian's work in Raku is very significant. Hard to qualify with references, but I would suggest he is one of the most significant Australian contributers to open source programming. Teraplane ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 13 March 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) 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep No further comments on what I stated above but Teraplane calls the Best Practices book a major publication. Whether major publication == notable work is not the issue here, as the page is about the author. However a refusal to mention the book anywhere would seem to be a poor decision, but the author's page is the fuller, and under WP:PAGEDECIDE I would suggest that the book is merged into the author's page, to the benefit of them both. This would need to be kept in that instance. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:23, 20 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! 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kazu Shigenobu

Kazu Shigenobu (  | talk | history | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 04:37, 20 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 merge‎ to Red Wheel/Weiser. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Phanes Press

Phanes 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)

Not notable. Was purchased 20 years ago, no coverage before or after. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If they're an imprint, merge to Red Wheel Weiser Conari. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:23, 20 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 List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WUOA-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:38, 20 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Beru Revue

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had "one notable radio hit", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, while music publicity mavens tend to indiscriminately attach the word "hit" to any song that ever got played on any radio station at all, so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching "hit" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability without a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about them shown, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:06, 28 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! 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: A few articles in the Delco Times; [26] is an example. I'm not sure how good of a source it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the above article in the Delco Times, I was able to find [27] [28] [29] ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – An easy pass per the WP:THREE raised by Editorofthewiki. TLA tlak 02:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 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 no consensus‎. given the divided opinion on the quality of sources available. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fidel Vargas

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

Previously nominated in a 48-article bundle which was closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size. This person has received some coverage in the LA Times, among other sources, but most of it is WP:ROTM election coverage. The only good thing I could find was this from the LA Times, this from Al Día News and maybe this from Hispanic Executive. The latter two are not major sources. The rest of the coverage that I could find is non-independent. He has held many positions within presidential administrations but none of them confer notability, and I don't think being named in a Time magazine makes you notable either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article says he was a mayor. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Oops, I somehow missed that. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Baldwin Park CA is in no sense large enough that its mayors would get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but this article isn't what it would need to be. At the mayoral level, notability is not established by minimally verifying that the person existed, it's established by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this isn't doing that. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 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, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I can see that on the surface but the only seemingly decent non- WP:ROTM, independent sources I could find are the LA Times article linked in the nom statement (which is still about his political career, which definitely does not meet notability guidelines alone), the Time and Hispanic magazine mentions and I guess the Al Dia and Hispanic Executive articles; however, Al Dia is local Philadelphia newspaper and I'm not quite sure what Hispanic Executive is but it seems to be rather obscure. The article about his being appointed to the White House Fellowships Commission and Al Dia article about his being awarded the Manuel Torres Award don't really contribute to notability in my opinion, as those positions/awards don't confer notability, and the White House one is not independent. It's a possibility there could be more sources, but all in all, I just don't think there's enough here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep this article could state which sources demonstrate GNG instead of stating "looks notable". Specificity helps everyone here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete mayors are not notable under WP:NPOL and there is no sourcing which suggests he's notable for any other reason. SportingFlyer T· C 01:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
SportingFlyer, I would think that mayors are covered by WP:NPOL #2, though I don't think he meets it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That does cover them, but they aren't "inherently" notable. SportingFlyer T· C 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: normally I would agree being mayor of a mid-sized town does not meet WP:NPOL but in addition to the other sources, he was covered by the Wall Street Journal ProQuest  398324421 (small bio, described Baldwin Park as a "major town"), this retrospective by the LA Times when he decided not to run for mayor again ( continued here), and a 2015 piece about his work with the Hispanic Scholarship Fund by The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education ProQuest  1650380227. There are also other possible sources in Spanish I did not assess. S0091 ( talk) 17:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for finding more sources. I would probably consider the article on his retirement to be fairly WP:ROTM local political coverage, though the others aren't bad. Not sure if I'm sold yet, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 21:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources just found (see above this post)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per S0091, I added several articles found on newspapers.com. He has a difficult name to research since it is rather generic in California. Not only was he mayor but also a Hispanic leader as president of an important not-for profit scholarship fund catering to Latinos as well as appointed to various federal commission by 4 separate presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Patapsco913 ( talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pinging @ BottleOfChocolateMilk, @ Bearcat and @ SportingFlyer for their consideration given the improvements. S0091 ( talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Winton, Richard (November 17, 1996). "Young Baldwin Park Mayor to Step Aside". The Los Angeles Times. pp.  B12, B14 – via Newspapers.com.
Quintanilla, Michael (August 28, 1994). "Coming Home". The Los Angeles Times. pp.  E1, E5 – via Newspapers.com.
"All About the Numbers: Vargas Takes the Helm of the HSF". Latino Magazine. Winter 2014.
The first two are local coverage, I have no idea if the last is reliable or not considering how interview-y it is. If he's notable, it's not as a mayor. SportingFlyer T· C 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What is the point about local coverage? There is no policy against using local sources. If that were the case, Wikipedia would have very few profiles of mayors most of which are developed using local sources. I simply went to newspapers.com, did a search and quickly found a couple of articles where Vargas is the subject of the article. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are plenty of reliable secondary sources about Vargas that fit this definition amounting to significant coverage. A simple search also shows that he has appeared on Cspan numerous times not in relation to his mayor ship. Considering that he is a figure from the 1990s and 2000s, how did your review of the newspaper archive sites go? I came up with a couple of articles upon a cursory review. Patapsco913 ( talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
We do have very few profiles of mayors, because simply having coverage is not a guarantee the subject is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia - and almost every politician will have something about them written somewhere, even if they're a mayor of a small town. For mayors we will generally delete if they have only received coverage of being a mayor in local sources. SportingFlyer T· C 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer Vargas has received coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek among other national or non-local sources. S0091 ( talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer There are 1000s of profiles of mayors. The WP:BIO guideline does not exclude local coverage from consideration. There is WP:SECONDARY coverage as well as ongoing coverage of his career, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial per the objective WP:GNG and WP:BASIC standards. Did you look at the newspaper archives that are available via the Wikipedia library? 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Just commenting that every mayor is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so as Bearcat has said before, purely local coverage is generally unlikely to provide notability unless we want articles on every mayor in the country. In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about keeping it; it looks like this discussion will probably be closed as no consensus, given the final relist. At this point I'm kind of on the fence about notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. There is nothing in the guidelines about local coverage and it is completely false that a mayor solely with "local coverage" sources are unlikely to provide notability. Where did you get this? So a mayor in California needs to have a newspaper in Cleveland write an article about him or her? Pretty silly. And you seem to define everything as "local coverage". I ask did you check the newspaper archives and research the subject considering he was a mayor in the 1990s and fund administrator in the 2000s? Did you notify people who worked on the article? You seem to be on a mission to delete every mayor on Wikipedia with some made up rule about local sources or based on some modifiable essay about "Run of the Mill." The notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources". Patapsco913 ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
None of this is "made up" – it's how we typically review articles about people whose only claim to notability is being a local politician. Just because someone has something written about them somewhere does not mean they are necessarily eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T· C 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strawman much? Where did I say that if "someone has something written about them somewhere means they are eligible for an article?" Whether an article solely consists of so-called "local sourcing" does not mean that a mayor is usually non-notable. Did you check the newspaper archives or just do a google search on a pre-internet mayor from the 1990s? There is plenty of information already in the article to support a substantive article about the mayor's political impact not to mention his role as CEO of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and his service on four separate commissions spanning 4 presidencies. He has even appeared on CSPAN four times. Patapsco913 ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If he's notable, it would be because he's a CEO. I will say it again, we generally do not include articles on mayors of small towns. SportingFlyer T· C 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Who is we? That is not in the guidelines at all. As I said before, the notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources". I would not deem a city of 75,000 a small town. Notability does not have to rest on one element: Vargas' was mayor with a significant impact as well as a Hispanic leader both documented in the article. You seem to be hung up on the size of the city which has no role in notability. Heck there is even sourcing from the Boston Globe and Newsday in the article. I guess your search for sources was pretty minimal, eh? Patapsco913 ( talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
He doesn't need a Cleveland article written about him, no. And sometimes local coverage can provide notability, yes; I just said that most of the time it doesn't, as every mayor will have a certain amount of local coverage. Yes, this one has more coverage than most of the other pages in the batch, and I am aware that not all sources are local; that is why I said I am feeling more neutral about deletion. And anyway, as for my "mission to delete all the mayors on Wikipedia", it was mostly just the failed Fidel Vargas batch. Unless a bunch of people come in to comment in the next four days, this discussion will go towards no consensus. I don't really care very much at this point, battle it out as you wish, but vitriol gets us nowhere. Also, I don't really see any more major contributors to notify; I guess I'll ping SDPLPauline. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I requested @ SportingFlyer's and others reconsideration, especially given @ Patapsco913's fantastic job improving the article, which Sporting has in WP:AGF provided. I disagree with their assessment in this instance but that's ok; it's why we have AfDs. Like @ AllTheUsernamesAreInUse says, there's no need for the discussion to be contentious. S0091 ( talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, Patapsco did put a lot of good work in on the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Vitriol seems like a strong word :-) I did not get snarky with anyone until they put words in my mouth which I do not appreciate. The ease with which I found sourcing on Newspapers.com indicates to me that a proper search was not done before nominating the article for deletion. The goal here is to improve Wikipedia and not to just blast through deletions. A mayor from the 1990s should be vetted before AFD via the newspaper archives (which often clears a paywall as well). If sources that establish notability are found, they should be added. The size of the city is not relevant. Local sourcing is sufficient (or else nearly every mayor on Wikipedia would be deleted...unless that is the goal). Personally, I would merge articles with mayors to their city rather than delete. Anyhow more people should learn how to maneuver in the Wikipedia Library. One might be able to save some articles from deletion and help to develop Wikipedia. Patapsco913 ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand your arguments. I agree that more people should join the Wikipedia Library; I will myself by the end of the month. If it's any consolation I nominated this before I nominated Paul Richards, so I knew less then. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:27, 25 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. (non-admin closure) 🍪 Cookie Monster 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Outline of the Book of Mormon

Outline of the Book of Mormon (  | talk | history | 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 isn't an article about a /thing/ or even a list. Its a list of lists related to Mormonism with no sources. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This is an outline, not a normal list, see Wikipedia:Outlines. I don't know why these exist, but they do, and we have a lot of them. This seems to be a decent one (though I'm unsure what they're really supposed to look like) so unless we want to delete every article in Category:Outlines I'd say keep this. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 03:40, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

ELML

ELML (  | talk | history | 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 are no citations in this article, and I can't find anything on the internet about this language besides papers from the authors. Those papers have a combined total of less than 100 citations. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I'm also mildly worried that this article was created by someone involved with the project. The article was created in 2006 by a user named Fisler. That happens to match the name of the first author on a paper about the language. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Benabaye

Benabaye (  | talk | history | 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 found in GBooks and GNews Archives. GNews hit says that a suspect from a drug den bust just happens to be from said baranggay. Alternatively, redirect to its town proper at Merida,_Leyte#Barangays -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 20 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 merge‎ to Kansas–Nebraska Act. There is a rough consensus not to keep the content as a standalone article. The Delete views have not provided a compelling reason not to merge the content into the proposed target, so this seems to be a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kansas and Missouri

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

There is no purpose in having a page dedicated to two states with separate pages, nor is there a reason to have a page dedicated to the relationship of two states. NotAMoleMan ( talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This is a good article. Title change is okay if the state names are kept in the title. Sources are reliable, and rich. They can support more discussion of the history of the two states as the US argued about slavery. I have added some more recent references on the continuing competition between the two states. Related articles focus on politics and the past; this article takes the story to the present century. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I still only see stuff related to the Act or sports. I think merging it into the Act's legacy while mentioning the present-day law against financial incentives for pulling from the other Kansas City and stuff would be enough. Aaron Liu ( talk) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge Civil War-related content would belong at Kansas–Nebraska Act#Aftermath, not here. You could just as easily have an article for any arbitrary combination of states, like Ohio and Michigan which fought a war and also has rival universities. Many other states also have shared metropolitan areas and can be said to compete or cooperate economically. This is really just WP:SYNTH, not a substantively notable topic that requires a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Reywas92: You have literally just described why an article of this type on Ohio and Michigan would not be arbitrary. Something like Delaware/Idaho or New Hampshire/New Mexico would be arbitrary. BD2412 T 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      Everything resulting from the war can be covered in the war's article. It's not too much. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      But it would be because the war already has an article and the university rivalry is irrelvant. Connecting those doesn't make an encylopedia article. Kansas City metropolitan area can also cover related content. Okay, bordering states aren't as arbitrary as those that don't, but there's New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, plenty of others that one could make whatever discussions of a rivalry, historical comparisons, or how their economies are related, but those just aren't articles we need. Reywas92 Talk 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Re: New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, yes, we actually could make pretty solid articles for all of those. Neighboring states often do involve themselves in rivalries along several dimensions of cultural significance, including athletic bragging rights due to cross-border proximities, and competition for business and natural resources. BD2412 T 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Those other articles are wholly legal and political, and not brought to the present. Kansas and Missouri had a major role in the slavery debate and the war, making them a unique pair of states. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Seems like you could just as easily have Kansas and Nebraska since the Act created both. Any pair of states is unique with some sort of relationship; we already have articles about the role in the war, with no need for this page. Reywas92 Talk 22:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is already well documented elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T· C 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Same can go for this article after we merge it. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act as per Reywas92, and the small amount of material not related could be merged to the individual states' pages. There is material here worth keeping but we have better articles for that. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we don't really need articles on 2 different similar places or similar topics. What next Jupiter and Saturn. Yes there is some content and sources but it it really appropriate for an article, such content could probably be contrived about many similar topics. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crouch, Swale: It wouldn't even be hard to write an article on comparisons between Jupiter and Saturn. Those have been compared by observers for thousands of years. BD2412 T 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    But we shouldn't. I and other poets have compared the rain to my tears for decades. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The points of comparison between the two largest neighboring gas giants in our planetary system are more than merely poetic. BD2412 T 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Does a comparison between Dickens and Hugo warrant an article? Aaron Liu ( talk) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That would revolve around whether there are substantial reliable sources specifically comparing and contrasting Dickens to Hugo. By the way, having poked around with the question, I am confident that I could write a killer article on the history of mythological, poetic, and literary metaphors comparing tears to rain. BD2412 T 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    But there aren't, and there aren't for Kansas and Missouri. Nearly all sources I find online are either encyclopedias or about Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry), which focuses on the sporting context as an extension of the war context. Even so, that article contains most of the background, and the only standalone parts of this article is some OR-y talk about the two Kansas City-s. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Article definitely should not be kept as-is. Would support a rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry or a redirect to relevant Civil War-era content over deletion, though. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We already have Bleeding Kansas, this topic is functionally duplicative. SportingFlyer T· C 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete without Objection to Creating a Completely Different Article There may be a notable topic on a Kansas City, Kansas–Kansas City, Missouri rivalry but the current article has too many problems to salvage: the text lacks details about a potential rivalry (i.e. the actual topic), instead the text wanders into the historical Kansas–Nebraska Act, it's not well named since it's not about whole states, it's not well sourced. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The choices I see are closing this as No consensus or adding another week for relisting and I'm taking that option. Of course the discussion can be closed at any time should a closer see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no need for an article like this. As for the Civil War history, that was adequately covered in its own article. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom and Reywas. The keep !votes aren't convincing about the point of this article's existence. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:04, 27 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 List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pilipinas News

AfDs for this article:
Pilipinas News (  | talk | history | 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 unknown. WP:Articles for deletion/Aksyon JournalisMO (2nd nomination) was closed as delete, so nominating later program. IgelRM ( talk) 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect (per Nate's alternative suggestion). We don't need more low-quality or stubbish articles of minor newscasts of the Philippines. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are now two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again for a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As nominator, I support the redirect to List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:25, 22 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! 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CodeRush

CodeRush (  | talk | history | 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 had a failed PROD several years ago on the basis that the sources were quality enough to warrant an article. I don't think this is true. The sources are all primary (both now and at the time of the PROD), and the secondary sources I could find online were self-published blogs that do not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:46, 20 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Peshawar mosque attack

2013 Peshawar mosque attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created 2 days after the event, I could find no coverage after June 2013 to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013, given the same rationale I gave with the last few AfDs (it's a terror attack so should probably be noted overall in terms of their security situation, likely mentioned somewhere in overall discussions of the issue). As with most of these cases, if there is later coverage it's almost certainly not in English, so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:58, 24 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 Worst Year of My Life Again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ned Napier

Ned Napier (  | talk | history | 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 didn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE which went into significant detail to pass WP:GNG. While he was the lead in Worst Year of My Life Again I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR as he hasn't had multiple significant roles. A possible redirect could be to Worst Year of My Life Again. Suonii180 ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again as an alternative to deletion. The current sourcing of the article is insufficient to serve as a standalone article. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 09:32, 20 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 00:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by WAPA-TV

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

Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and this list lacks any sourcing from non-primary sources as a grouping. Let'srun ( talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:35, 20 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2019 Makran massacre

2019 Makran massacre (  | talk | history | 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 could only find coverage from April 2019. No lasting effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge a (heavily abridged version, probably a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019, where it is mentioned with no detail. Seems a relevant note given their security situation. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge selectively to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. No evidence of sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:26, 24 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_20&oldid=1217127681"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jihin Radzuan

Jihin Radzuan (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having singificant coverage from independent, relliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mention. All the sources found are either routine reports for fight announcements or fight results or interview pieces (not independent source) which can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Malaysia. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and completely lacks SIGCOV and GNG. Lethweimaster ( talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She fails to meet WP:NMMA. Being ranked as the #5 challenger in her promotion is not the same as being top 10 worldwide, especially when the champion is ranked 10th. The promotion she fights for is the primary source of references, with the rest being fight results and promotions. No evidence of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or of meeting WP:ANYBIO. Her kickboxing medal at the Southeast Asian Games came in a division where everyone won a medal and she lost her only fight. Nothing to show any SNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 03:52, 26 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! 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of fiction employing parallel universes

List of fiction employing parallel universes (  | talk | history | 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 have a decent-ish Parallel universes in fiction from which this was spun off, creating a bad list - one that fails WP:LISTN/ WP:NLIST, WP:OR as well as WP:IPC/ MOS:TRIVIA. WP:NOTTVTROPES - this is just, sadly, WP:FANCRUFTy list of randomly selected works that include this concept - some of them are pretty far fetched, too (ex. Avengers: Endgame which does not even mention this term in the article). The aforementioned Parallel universes in fiction article will do just fine (although it has some listy content that needs to be pruned). At best, per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to the main article - maybe someone will fine something from here useful for merging or otherwise one day. PS. On the off chance this is kept, it obviously needs a rename too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Out of Africa Wildlife Park

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

Lacks continuous coverage, little to no sources online, with the exception of ticket booking websites. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Pfeiffer, Lori Rohlk; Morris, Paul (2001). Insiders' Guide: Phoenix. Guilford, Connecticut: Insiders' Guide. p. 154. ISBN  1-57380-183-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Think of Out of Africa not as a zoo but as a small version of Sea World that substitutes exotic tigers for the killer whales. The big cats can be seen in natural habitats developed for them at the park as well as in an unrehearsed show called Tiger Splash. Yes, they romp in the water with staff members and perform various tricks. Species include white tigers and Bengals. There are nine animal shows in all, which give the park a chance to show off its other inhabitants, including lions, coatis, foxes, bears, cougars, wolves, pythons, and exotic birds. But Tiger Splash, usually performed once daily, is the most popular. The grounds also include a cafe and gift shop."

    2. Weir, Bill (2011) [2011]. Arizona (4 ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Traveler. p. 109. ISBN  978-1-4262-0713-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Big cats and other fauna in the Out of Africa Wildlife Park roam within near-natural enclosures. The animals housed in the 104-acre park reveal their behavior and personalities during "African Bush Safaris," wildlife preserve tours, and wildlife encounter demonstrations. For the exciting Tiger Splash, staffers get into a pool and coax tigers to join them and play with "prey" toys. Try to arrive early to make the most of your visit; allow at least four hours at the park. Take I-17 Exit 287, turn west and go 3 miles on Arizona 260 toward Cottonwood, then turn left at the traffic light onto Cherry Road."

    3. Wyman, Bill. "Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article gives the park one out of three stars. The article notes: "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. And zebras and giraffes and wildebeests, oh yes. That’s what you’ll encounter at this sprawling wildlife park between Camp Verde and Cottonwood. ... One of the park’s most popular attractions, especially with kids, is the Tiger Splash, in which big cats and their caretakers demonstrate predator-prey interactions in a large pool."

    4. Golfen, Bob (2003-06-18). "Going on Safari: Animal attraction plans move to more expansive home". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, founded Out of Africa 15 years ago on the Fort McDowell Reservation, north of Fountain Hills. The aim was to keep the animals in their natural states and to understand their behavior in terms of the logical results of nature and instinct. ... This is the last summer season for Out of Africa at its 16-acre location. Soon, construction will begin on a 125-acre site in Camp Verde that's designed to take the wildlife park from a local attraction to a national destination, complete with a hotel and two complete restaurants. The park will close at Fort McDowell next May 31, Harrison said. Then the staff will undertake the daunting task of transporting all the wild animals 100 miles north by truck. Fifteen tigers, 17 lions, a pair of giraffes, antelopes, African wart hogs, bears, wolves, a small herd of zebras, birds, monkeys, snakes, lizards and a huge African porcupine are among the animals that will be on the road."

    5. Naylor, Roger (2021-05-12). "Glamping, Airstreams, yurts and a caboose: How to reserve the coolest lodgings in Arizona". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "You don’t actually sleep with the lions on this glamping adventure, but it might feel that way if a throaty roar fills your tent in the night. Sometimes, the lions at Out of Africa Wildlife Park wake up hungry and just like everyone to know it. The Safari Village in Camp Verde consists of eight tents on the property of Out of Africa, lined up near the elands and wildebeests. The roomy tents measure 120 square feet and are furnished with beds, dresser, lighting, an ice chest and a propane heater."

    6. Naylor, Roger (2013-04-13). "Out of Africa Gives Visitors a Closer Look at Exotic Animals" (pages 1 and 2). The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Tiger Splash is the signature show of Out of Africa Wildlife Park in Camp Verde. It provides plenty of thrills for the crowd sitting on shaded bleachers."

      The article notes: "Nestled in the high desert of Camp Verde, 90 miles north of Phoenix, Out of Africa is home to 400 exotic animals, including dozens of large predators. The preserve is spread across 104 rolling acres in the Black Hills, a setting that bears a striking resemblance to many regions of Africa. The park began as a research project that Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, began in their home. Their first Out of Africa opened on 16 acres in Fountain Hills in 1988. They moved to Camp Verde in 2005. The larger property allowed for a greater number and diversity of animals, as well as larger habitats. The spacious habitats and proximity to animals provide a more intimate experience than one might expect."

    7. Harrington, Candy B. (Winter 2004). "Escape The Winter Blues In Phoenix And Scottsdale". Emerging Horizons. Vol. 7, no. 1. ProQuest  233398299.

      The article notes: "Another place to get a close-up look at wildlife is at the Out of Africa Wildlife Park ... located northeast of Scottsdale in Fountain Hills. It's just a 25-minute drive from the Sky Harbor Airport and it's a great place to spend the day. This is not your typical wildlife park. When you first enter you will notice a number of exotic animals roaming comfortably through their spacious enclosures, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The shows are quite unique, as the handlers encourage the animals to use their natural instincts. As you can imagine this produces some edge-of-your-seat moments, especially during the Tiger Splash show where the handlers actually become the prey. There's plenty of room up front for wheelchairs ..."

    8. Danz, Harold P. (1999). Cougar!. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press. pp. 37–39. ISBN  0-8040-1014-5. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Out of Africa Wildlife Park at Fountain Hills, Arizona, is an unusual wildlife exhibit that offers a somewhat different perspective on the cougar. Coowners Dean and Bobbi Harrison maintain more than twenty-five species of mammals, reptiles, and birds in a compound that attracts more than one hundred thousand visitors a year. Animals are both on display and in performance. In addition to white tigers, tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars, a caracal, servals, and bobcats, the Harrisons also have five cougars. A cougar is used in a “show” with two bears and three wolves. The objective of this mixed-species performance is to demonstrate that trained animals of different species can get along together. Although in the performances that I witnessed the cougar seemed somewhat diffident or aloof, ..."

    9. Hecht, Jon (2018-06-19). "Out of Africa wildlife park plans to expand, possibly double in size". Journal AZ. Larson Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Driving on State Route 260 between Camp Verde and Cottonwood, it can be hard to miss Out of Africa Wildlife Park. Full of exotic animals, the park takes up 103 acres of land, and has become a fixture of the lower Verde Valley. ... Out of Africa Wildlife Park moved to its current location from a smaller park on Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation east of Scottsdale. When park owners Dean and Prayeri Harrison relocated the park, they became involved with land developer Bill Jump, who is now a co-owner of the park. ... In the past several years, the park has also been toying with entertainment options beyond the park’s wildlife. Two years ago, a company installed a zipline throughout the park, and in the past year it added horseback rides and Jeep rides provided A Day In The West, a Sedona tour company."

    10. Reep, Erin (2004-05-11). "Out of Africa scrambling to relocate animals". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Harrison speaks gently to the animals. He is surprisingly upbeat for a man faced with the daunting task of relocating 300 wild animals, their habitats and other buildings from the park's 16-acre home off the Beeline Highway on the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to a 104-acre site near Camp Verde. Fort McDowell served the park an eviction notice May 5, stating it had until June 30 to vacate the property and restore it to its natural condition. The eviction came after Out of Africa advised the tribe it intended to leave the property and move to the new site."

    11. Roland, Rachel. "Take a Day Trip to Out of Africa Wildlife Park!". Arizona Foothills Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Recently our family took a fun trip to the Out of Africa Wildlife Park (whatever you do, do not call it a zoo). ... Once you pay your admission fee, ($36 for adults, $20 for children 3-12 years, under 3 are free), you are free to explore the park. However, I highly recommend you head straight for the Serengeti Safari Tour (you receive a ticket for this with your admission). On this tour, you are taken through Out Of Africa's Serengeti - a wide open space with many animals - giraffes, zebras, ostriches, antelope, Watusi cattle, and more! You get to experience this on an open aired bus or tram and the tour is narrated by the driver, who can be quite entertaining."

    12. "Best Safari Park: Lee G. Simmons Conservation Park and Safari wins". USA Today. 2019-05-03. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Situated in the picturesque Black Hills of Camp Verde, Arizona, Out of Africa occupies 100 acres of rolling hills where mammals, birds and reptiles from around the globe roam. Visitors can embark on a 40-minute safari through the park’s own Serengeti preserve or go behind the scenes with a member of the animal care team."

    13. Reep, Erin (2004-02-11). "Wildlife park not out of Fountain Hills yet". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Lions, bears, giraffes and other wildlife at Out of Africa Wildlife Park will have to wait quite a while longer before they can roam in a more spacious location. The park originally planned to move from its 16-acre site near Fountain Hills to a 104-acre property near Camp Verde this summer, said park president Dean Harrison."

    14. "Best Place To Hug A Hyena: Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Phoenix New Times. 2001-09-20. ProQuest  207457133. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.

      The article notes: "Out of Africa is not a zoo or a circus, but it combines the best of both to teach us about animals. Its garden setting puts us mere feet from tigers, lions, bears and wolves -- the panther is so close we can smell its breath. Out of Africa -- for us, and for the animals -- is out of sight."

    15. Ropp, Thomas (1995-12-25). "A white (tiger) Christmas at Valley wildlife park". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "She and her husband Steve paid $300 Saturday to play for 15 minutes with two month-old white tiger cubs at Out Of Africa Wildlife Park near Fountain Hills. ... The 10-pound, blue-eyed tigers, making their public debut, were shown in the wildlife park's cougar habitat. The St. Jeans were the first to play with the cubs."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:38, 24 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. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alister De Bellotte

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

Playing football for a national team doesn't give automatic notability, so neither does coaching. This manager is covered in passing mentions only, failing the WP:SIGCOV guideline. I only found mentions such as this, and of course databases. Several/most biographical details are in the dark. Being a name in a list at Grenada national football team#Coaching history should suffice. Geschichte ( talk) 22:54, 20 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 merge‎ to Milky Way#Etymology and mythology. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of names for the Milky Way

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of names of the Ottoman Empire

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 20 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! 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kim Ho-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:47, 20 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. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Choi Won-nam

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:45, 20 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! 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Choi Hyon-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:41, 20 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! 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

João Castro Neves

João Castro Neves (  | talk | history | 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 GNG or SNG. Content is basically resume content written in a resume way. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. At first blush econoTimes looks lengthy but it has no author and a disclaimer by EconoTimes and appears to be flowerly self-written bio. Some concern that the creator has a total of 39 edits, nearly all on this person, the company they work for (3G capital) and articles on two other employees of 3G capital. North8000 ( talk) 21:28, 20 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Correspondences (journal)

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

Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable. Star Mississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The journal has significant coverage in four reliable, independent sources and thus passes WP:GNG. Schenkstroop ( talk) 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: in-passing mentions don't satisfy GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Well, this is a University post about the journal, they don't seem to be associated with the journal [1], I think it would be independent. I don't see the Univ. of Pennsylvania as being on the list of journal staff. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That looks like a standard call for submissions to me, certainly written by the journal staff or the guest editor for the special issue. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This is a piece of publicity, essentially just an ad written by the journal staff themselves. That UPenn agreed to publish it provides only the very slightest amount of support in favor of the journal's notability, maybe, but it's fundamentally inaccurate to call it a "University post about the journal". Brusquedandelion ( talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: Seems to be just enough with the sourcing found. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The consensus last time was delete (I'm assuming it was deleted but then recreated?) and hardly anything seems to have changed since then. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 15:36, 14 March 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! 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: The journal seems to have been consistently publishing for over ten years (see https://correspondencesjournal.com/), with roughly two issues per year. When I google "esotericism journal" it's a top hit. Whirlywyrd ( talk) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — Whirlywyrd ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment Having been around for some time is irrelevant (see WP:N). And if this is a "top hit" on Google, it should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss the journal in depth. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Looking at the article contents had me in the middle - seeing that this article has been listed for deletion before has made me lean towards delete, and spending quite some time searching for sources on both Google and EBSCO just looking for any hint of noteworthiness has not really done anything to move the needle in the other direction. Sleddog116 ( talk) 02:52, 28 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

InstallJammer

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

This article also fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The three sources provided in the article are solely from the official website of the software. I was unable to locate credible sources that provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the topic, which are necessary for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia ( talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 13 March 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) 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCT. I'm not sure what "the bank page" means in terms of a redirect. If there is a suitable redirect, I would support that. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:07, 28 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Epos Now

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

Just an SME that fails ncorp Kaptain Kebab Heart ( talk) 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In this context, it refers to Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the overwhelming majority of UK companies Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 14 March 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) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Here I found some of the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot ( talk) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as there are much more reliable sources than those cited in the current version of the page. The organization is pretty notable, per TechRadar and other media coverage. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 15:47, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chad Kultgen

AfDs for this article:
Chad Kultgen (  | talk | history | 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 subject fails WP:BIO. There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. The rest are all either reviews of his books, or minor article about being sued over a podcast. One or more of his books could possibly be considered notable, but notability is not inherited, so those articles need to be created separately. Also note this was deleted back in 2011 and re-created in 2012. I haven't seen the deleted version as the history is not merged. Iggy pop goes the weasel ( talk) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington. Shellwood ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Seems to pass AUTHOR with reviews [5], [6]. With the NY Times article, I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Plenty of articles about the George Carlin AI special, mentioning this person, and the lawsuit involved. Depending how it goes, could either be famous or infamous. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: widespread, active coverage going on with George Carlin. She was a fairy 02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. is evidence of a BEFORE failure; the NYT so rarely writes about people that no other RS is covering, the more prudent move is to assume you've missed something else and keep looking. Jclemens ( talk) 05:52, 21 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 List of Ireland women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Joanna Loughran

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Irish women's cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Joanna Loughran has played in a Women's T20 International match between two full member sides, fulfilling notability requirements for WP:OFFICIALCRICKET. CarnivalSorts ( talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CarnivalSorts: That just means that coverage is likely to exist for a player. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've added some more coverage from the Irish Independent and RTÉ. CarnivalSorts ( talk) 19:49, 20 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. Page is now SALTed. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Marlabs

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

Another (3rd) recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. Previous AfD: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marlabs_(2nd_nomination) 扱. し. 侍. ( talk) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt This company does not have any WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing is limited to interviews and press releases. I was unable to find anything other than press releases/churnalism by websites such as "PR Newswire." Please note the Forbes article is by the CEO so it does not count as secondary coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt both Marlabs and Marlabs LLC : A new instance on a previously deleted topic, supported by a summary and announcement-based coverage of routine company history, falling under WP: ORGTRIV. I see no reason to set aside the previous AfD decisions. Given this 3rd AfD, plus previous G11 deletions, if this current instance is deleted, it also seems appropriate to salt the variant names. AllyD ( talk) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a completely different from previous versions which are so old. Now it is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources, passes GNG. Graze Wood ( talk) 13:35, 26 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 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

K. R. L. Thangavel

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

Candidate for the upcoming election in India, fails WP:NPOL. No other apparent claim to notability. There has been a general consensus that Wikipedia is not a publicity forum for election candidates. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of him online in English or Tamil (கே.ஆர்.எல்.தங்கவேல்} was passing mentions of him in routine coverage of candidates, and not even an interview with him about his candidacy. Wikishovel ( talk) 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Karthick ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

:Delete Karthick ( talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Iamakarthick we are all only allowed one vote. She was a fairy 02:49, 21 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. A veritable army of likely canvassed/paid/SPA/COI/socks has been mobilized to show up here and add their !vote, all on the Delete side. But rather than engage in speculation about who is a legitimate, unbiased participant in good standing and who isn't, most of these Delete views can be discarded based on their lack of reliance on P&G. This leaves us with a clear consensus to keep the article. For the avoidance of doubt: claims about libel or defamation should be emailed to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. We will not engage in discussing legal accusations across Wikipedia pages. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BNN Breaking

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

Thoroughly checked the page and saw a lot of editing dispute. I guess this article does not meet the Notability criteria. The lead section does not have any citation. Few references are used many times. The article gives me impression that it is not written in neutral language. HxxxM07 ( talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I would say it passes WP:GNG: there is significant coverage in multiple indepedent sources, including Business Insider, multiple local newspapers, and an Irish national newspaper (though perhaps none of them have consensus as reliable sources--BI doesn't have a consensus ( WP:BI) and none of the others are major news outlets). The lead section not having citations is fine, as the points are cited in the article body (as per MOS:LEAD). I would not advocate deletion on an article for not meeting WP:NPOV, as the article could be improved to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Hong Kong, and United States of America. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't have an opinion atm, but condense and merge to Gurbaksh Chahal is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • delete If this article and company is notable no page on the platform should be deleted. I just saw the article's history and its already messed up. As per my experience here the company is not having a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just same articles taking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff and the whole article is rather opinion than an encyclopedia material. I will still try to find and add if any reliable source with indepth coverage about the compnay exists. NatalieTT ( talk) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — NatalieTT ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Please note that this could potentially be a case of a bad-faith nomination, as the founder of BNN Breaking has a long history of hiring freelancers to whitewash their pages. Upon examining the history of this article, there seem to be some attempts to remove the controversial part. Please mail me or paid-en queue for more details. GSS  💬 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I would vote Keep, except I guess I should recuse myself since I (along with @ Lepricavark) was mentioned by name on a BNN Breaking article critical of Wikipedia: [7]. I think we should keep the article for the benefit of people who want to determine whether a news site is bogus or not. Chisme ( talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Like GSS, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nomination in light of Chahal's extensive history of chicanery. If he doesn't like the way that his organization is covered in this article, maybe he should clean up his clearly dirty organization. Unfortunately for him, being crooked is not a safeguard against being notable. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Lepricavark: I have a feeling that this AfD is going to attract some suspicious delete voters, similar to user NatalieTT, who was inactive for over 3 months and suddenly became active to !vote here. GSS  💬 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, that would be par for the course given prior abuses at the Chahal article. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Chisme, did you check the tags at the end of the article text? They're quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I saw it @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång written; Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David Gerard, Ravensfire, and DanielMichaelPerry. It's quite funny though! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think there's just enough sources, which span a period of several years, that the article warrants keeping. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: bnn breaking is a horrible news source. that doesn't mean they are not notable, there is sufficient coverage. She was a fairy 02:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • comment I avoid contributing to such situations but here something is cooking. I reported a lot of socks and people silently who try to prepare a case against a specific topic or shed personal agendas rather than based on the policy. I believe a lot of paid editing is involved here and the article may have been created to secure a place on Wikipedia to get more hype. I will send the evidence to concerned authorities as well. I can see that only San Francisco Chronicle and related sub sites which are not even in the list of reliable sources listed have interest in this non-notable company that is not even a news site but a personal blog with pathetic publicity stunt type of news coverage used as click baits. I'm on a clear side on Delete but I will keep an eye out and see if someone shows more coverage instead of bombarding it with keeps. The Informer Sally ( talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — The Informer Sally ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • delete It really seems that this article is meant to defame and slander a particular person. After properly going the edit history I found that it seems the whole intention of this article to ensure bad name directed towards 1 person. I hereby change the vote to deletion, as soon as possible. 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)~ Bonadart ( talk) — Bonadart ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete/Comment I was searching for something on Google and landed here in search of information. I edited and even created pages in the past but then left because even after spending months to create pages they were removed for being 'non-notable' and after reading the article in question and reading the points here I felt I should leave my analysis as well. There's not a single news article on Google news section that discusses the subject in detail check here [8]. It doesn't meet WP:GNG even. G19US ( talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — G19US ( talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • This is not a very well-formed nomination for deletion (a lead doesn't need citations...), and the multiple accounts that just show up here, arguing that it's somehow defamation, that's more than a little odd. Plus, there is sourcing, of course, even though much of it is negative. Is it enough to keep? Should it be merged into the owner's bio? I don't really know, or care, but it's pretty clear that there are outside interests here with these articles, as this also shows. Drmies ( talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Thoroughly checked the sources, and I don't see any in-depth coverage about the subject. The cited sources are emphasizing the event in particular rather than subject itself, and if exclude those sources there left nothing. Also, other than San Francisco Chronicle, Business Insider, the cited sources are not that much reliable. Atighot ( talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Atighot ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep, multiple sources over multiple years describe this website. Also want closer to note the wave of 'delete' votes from accounts that have made little edits outside this topic, considering the founder's history of recruiting paid editors. wizzito | say hello! 00:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article needs to be around to keep receipts on the Internet to inform the populace on what BNN Breaking is doing. It is notable and has been covered by multiple RS. The wave of "delete" comments also seems suspicious given BNN Breaking's own attempts itself to whitewash this article. Having failed that, I believe their new tactic is to get the article about BNN Breaking deleted. You can read about their attempts here on their site, with an article bashing Wikipedia: BNN Breaking EXCLUSIVE: The Dark Side of Wikipedia - The Billion-Dollar Web of Deception, Lies & Elite Manipulation. Merge with the founder's article is no good. This needs to have its own article to inform and educate the public. - Object404 ( talk) 06:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Dropping my two cents here, this page seems to have been created to defame the entity. The editing done on this page seems to be targeted to tarnish the image of the company and to destabilize the article itself. As per my experience here, the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just the same articles talking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff, and the whole article is rather an opinion than encyclopedia material. I have not encountered any Wikipedia article about a media company—or any company, for that matter—framed in such a manner that it meets inclusion criteria. Additionally, a preliminary search revealed a lack of visibility on Google, casting further doubt on the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  • "the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source" -> This is a lie. The subject is covered in-depth by The San Francisco Standard.
    - Object404 ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I nominated this article for deletion only because it lacks significant coverage in my opinion. Many statements are backed by websites that cannot be considered as trustable. I highly suggest the cleanup of this article to maintain Wikipedia standard if it is kept. Vital information should not backed by blog article, instead please use trustable sources if there is any. M66JX ( talk) 08:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You are asking us to believe that after nearly a month of inactivity which was preceded by a warning that you appeared to be making undisclosed paid contributions, upon your return you coincidentally just happened to stumble across this article and nominate it for deletion. And the fact that this article is about a company founded by a man with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors on his own biography is yet another coincidence because you totally weren't paid for this nomination. I don't believe you. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Existing sources show enough coverage of BNN to meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep like Chisme, I had intended to recuse myself from this AfD. However, since those affiliated with the subject have shown no compunctions against pursuing their conflict of interest via poorly-disguised paid !votes, I will formally register my !vote in favor of keeping the article. The sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG whether Gurbaksh Chahal likes it or not. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Strongly agreed with Object404. Also, all delete votes seem so suspicious and funny to see all of the voters just awaken from hyper inactivity all of a sudden and come to Wikipedia to vote on deleting an article. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article does note meet WP:NORG.i think this article shoun't be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcruexz ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whereas, the Wikipedia article, bnn breaking exhibits a tone that suggests a close relationship between the writer/editor and the subject matter. The article also fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's significance, as single references is used multiple times. Therefore, BNN Breaking violates Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and notability. Palucy ( talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Palucy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and cealrly looks like promotional article or paid article. Thatbombayboy ( talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Thatbombayboy ( talk) • reply
  • Delete this artical looks like act of defamation under Libel and the nature of the edits gives the impression that editor have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but editor have not complied with [ mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.] Kingaayaan ( talk) 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Kingaayaan ( talk) • reply
    Oh, the irony. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 17:04, 27 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. ✗ plicit 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keenan Prochnow

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has not won a medal at any international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 20 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 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Freshwater Christian College

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and updated one reference and added another; but am not seeing enough reliable, independent and significant coverage for the school to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:51, 20 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals

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

Primarily, this page was created by an editor who has been banned for engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India, where they were actually discovered. Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages. Charlie ( talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it. Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK. Crystalholm ( talk) 16:21, 20 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 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Jordan Murch

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfThe Greyhounds 15:30, 20 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 Cookie Monster 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Govind Dholakia

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

Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's Notability of Politicians guideline ( WP:NPOL). Nominated to the Rajya Sabha but not elected, and has not yet taken on the role. Remaining content is promotional in nature ( WP:NEWSORGINDIA), including his autobiography. Charlie ( talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie ( talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Gujarat. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Members-elect to an WP:NPOL-passing office pass NPOL. This source confirms he was elected. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree, we can make MP-elect articles per NPOL clause. Read this, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️( 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is a member-elect of the Rajya Sabha, so obviously meets WP:NPOL #1. The article needs improvement and cleaning up, not deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw and Keep Passes WP:NPOL criterion 1 for the member-elect. Also, the reference from The Hindu, shared by Curbon7 and added by me, satisfies the requirements of WP:THREE; which also dispelled my uncertainty regarding his appointment through election, as I had previously assumed it was merely a nomination. Charlie ( talk) 03:15, 21 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Weinstein effect

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

This article is full of good content that should be on Wikipedia. However, a lot of the content in this article feels like it would make more sense as part of articles on #MeToo, and would improve those articles and provide context. I feel this article doesn't really have a reason to stand on it's own, especially since the "Weinstein effect" isn't really a well defined term even in this article and has had limited usage. Hence, I think it may make more sense to merge this with /info/en/?search=MeToo_movement. (This is my second AfD nomination, I hope I'm doing this right). Update: I took a look at the previous AfD discussion, with over seven years since the last nomination, it seems that time has made this a case of WP: NEO. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, and Sexuality and gender. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Gonna be bold here: Snow close. The articles in question, Weinstein effect and MeToo movement should be edited appropriately, nothing to delete here. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Using AfD to propose a merge and redirect like this isn't particularly abnormal (the merge proposal process, which would be the alternative, is seen as largely broken). The nominator made an argument that can be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, so I don't see a need for a snow close. Sdkb  talk 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can't disagree on your view. There obviously are alternative ways of dealing with a problem like the issue at hand, I for one would rather get in touch with significant contributors and seek an opinion. However, if it's the D in AfD that's the case here, and concerning the D I do see a close (okay maybe not necessarily a snow but it felt like a snow moment at first instinct) because there's other things to consider here. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep if not snowball, the article is about an event that is still remembered to this day by regular people and has tons of reliable sources on it. Jeanette the Porn Chat Star Martin ( aqui) 05:53, 21 March, 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I agree with the comments of User:JeanetteMartin above, and with the result of the first afd. While some some cleanup of the article may be in order, I can see no compelling reason for deletion or merging. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The first AfD was no closed with no prejudice against a merger. And "no compelling reason" isn't a rebuttal to the argument that the OP made. That argument is about scope, so to refute it you need to show that the two pages have sufficiently different scopes that it makes sense to present them separately. As a closer, I would discount the tons of reliable sources comments, which would speak to a notability challenge not being made here. For the folks in the back: Notability is not the only reason that a page can be unsuitable. I'm disappointed with the quality of the discussion so far. Sdkb  talk 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I want to second the argument here, this isn't a notability discussion, this is about whether the information in the article overlaps with already written content on Wikipedia. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A well-referenced article for a concept that continues to have impact. Toughpigs ( talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article describes it a Weinstein Effect as "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," then proceeds to list only one example (the #MeToo movement), it should either be completely reworked to talk about other examples that do not follow from or are adjacent to #MeToo, or it should be merged with the article about the #MeToo if it is just another name for the movement. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 23:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The term is covered in USA Today, CBS News and others. Perfectstrangerz ( talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but in the context of the #MeToo movement, not really outside of it. This article frankly needs to be more clear on what it is. Is it "fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal"? Or is it "the social repercussions of movements that expose powerful people (only in cases of sexual harassment? not cases of sexual harassment?)"? Or is it just "a part of the #MeToo movement"? Frankly, some of these provide cases for keeping the article, which is fine, but in that case, we better make it very clear what the article is about. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That comment makes for a very confusing rationale for deletion. It seems like you're arguing for a merge with MeToo movement (or possibly several related pages, per your original statement), but you've also suggested that you're not sure whether it entirely overlaps with MeToo.
    I would suggest that an Articles for Deletion discussion is not the best format to make this determination. This is a problem that can only be solved by careful analysis and thoughtful editing, and you are apparently the person who's most invested in figuring it out. AfD participants are going to treat this like an AfD nomination. You're posing a more complex question, which is probably best explored as a bold merge attempt. Toughpigs ( talk) 04:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    To be honest, the reason I made the request is because I felt that deleting the article (and transferring some of its content) would be the cleanest solution, (and my preferred solution). I'm not good at merge attempts, but if you think that would be a better approach, feel free to make one! I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Allan Nonymous I don't want to criticise You here, after all we're all learning as we go, but bringing the article to the deletion pages seems like you needed a forum for comment on what to do with the articles. There should be another way to seek comments on articles on WP, but I don't know if there is one. Maybe contacting relevant wikiprojects or significant contributors? @ Toughpigs my thoughts exactly. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge content into the #MeToo article and Harvey Weinstein BLP. As Allan Nonymous said, the first line of the article title, that the Weinstein Effect is "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," isn't well supported. Describing it as a global trend known by that name that persists into the present doesn't seem accurate. #MeToo captures it better.-- FeralOink ( talk) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, more so as of today than ever. Since this was nominated, this has been in the news overnight in connection with P. Diddy's absconding from the Federal (United States) authorities. It's as if it's an ongoing event with a long legacy. Oh wait .... See WP:BEFORE. Bearian ( talk) 15:47, 26 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. ✗ plicit 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Radio Broadgreen

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

Another closed-circuit hospital radio station which does not meet WP:BASIC. Article completely unsourced and research does not reveal much (if any) coverage, other than a single event in 2016 which attracted some offbeat news coverage [12]. Flip Format ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unfortunately there are many, many hundreds of completely unsourced, non-notable radio station articles (of which this is one) on Wikipedia due to previous policy effectively suggesting all radio stations were inherently notable. While it is a shame to see people's work be deleted, without sources we have no credibility, we effectively become a social media site. It's extraordinary how many of these articles have existed for 10-20 years with literally no sources. I also note that the page was specifically created to "advertise the station as much as possible" AusLondonder ( talk) 17:58, 20 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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus since no clear consensus established after a month of discussion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Talafi

Talafi (  | talk | history | 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:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2012. Minor awards DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 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) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Referencing is a bit low but still can be kept as stub as Pakistani dramas from that time has similar referencing from primary sources mostly. Showbiz news websites were very few back then, even very few newspapers maintained efficiently online presence. Muneebll ( talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 March 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) 14:42, 20 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. I hope these sources can find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Peter Nguyen Van Hung

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

Possible cross-wiki spam, noticed some 15 years ago already. I don't see notability; he is an activist but without major achievements. Nadzik ( talk) 10:15, 13 March 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) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: Mentioned in a few articles [13], [14], with probably the best here [15], as human rights activist. I think we have just enough basic coverage about the person. A mention here [16] Oaktree b ( talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Taipei Times, The Diplomat and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:54, 24 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 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

St. Berks

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

Article cites no sources; sources difficult/impossible to find, clearly not notable Personhumanperson ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Personhumanperson ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I cannot find a single source online about this, from the BBC, on archive.org, or otherwise, which is odd as the main significance of it seems to be that it was the first BBC Digital Commission. I wonder if this article is pure fabrication, or if information about the show has just been lost to time (or if anyone can dig up a source on it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Great piece of creative writing. Zero available evidence this series even existed; all indicators point towards the article creator and main contributing editor being on some sort of hoax. (for reference - see the first ever edit by the creator of this article [17]; the plot itself appears - erm - far fetched unless as a surreal comedy - NOTHERE may well apply). Resonant Distortion 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think we've got a new one for the WP:HOAXLIST for sure, so 'congratulations' to Dickpiggot ( talk · contribs) for getting this just short of the eighteen-year mark AND somehow not getting immediately blocked. Nate • ( chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Congratulations to Personhumanperson on spotting this. It's actually incredible how many articles have been around 10-20 years with zero sources, particularly in the radio topic area. There's a lot of cleaning up to do to. Congratulations also to the creator for managing to create a hoax unnoticed for going on two decades. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    What amazes me so much is that, looking at the page history, it was visited and touched by so many experienced users, and yet none of them caught on. Serious props to the guy, who created a hoax so believable that even well-known users missed it. Personhumanperson ( talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    All editors really need to be much more alert and active regarding wholly unsourced articles. It's damaging to our credibility as an encyclopedia. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing Online. Wow, a Hoax! 🍪 Cookie Monster 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete: if the series had been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 or BBC 7 (now BBC Radio 4 Extra) it would have an entry in the BBC Genome Project, and it doesn't. : Flip Format ( talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No sources and poorly written. It doesn't even mention dates as to when it was ran, even if it is real. But this whole thing could be hoax. Perfectstrangerz ( talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wonder if creator's name is a reference to Richard Pigott, an Irish journalist known for creating a forgery... AusLondonder ( talk) 04:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Does this qualify for G3?🍪 Cookie Monster 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikidata item doesn't contain anything meaningful too. Killarnee ( talk) 19:22, 24 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 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Raagini Sutradhar

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR, only minor roles so far. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just routine syndicated movie promotion, and a few brief articles about her wedding to a director. This Times of India article cited says she was cast in Lage Prema Nazar in 2021, but I can't find a reliable source to verify that she appeared in the released film. Unsourced claims about her early life (now removed) and improperly sourced promotional photo suggest undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel ( talk) 12:21, 20 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

3:16 game

AfDs for this article:
3:16 game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A similarly named page (different capitalization) was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game. This article largely duplicates what is already at Tim Tebow. The section 3:16 game § Background is covered at Tim Tebow § "The Tebow Rule" , and 3:16 game § Statistical coincidences is at the game's coverage at Tim Tebow § 2011 season.

The notability guideline WP:NSPORTSEVENT reads:

Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

WP:NOTABILITY states:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio, which has the relevant background of his college references to 3:16. For the NFL game itself, other pages this topic overlaps with, aside from Tebow's bio, are 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. — Bagumba ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This game can be covered at the Tebow article and in the two team-season articles. Cbl62 ( talk) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom. This article is honestly mostly just trivia. If it wasn't for Tebow being a big religious guy this is just something that would be written about once a decade that makes people go "... huh. Neat." Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per G4. Delete per nom. No actual notability other than this weird coincidence.🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reverted, per what I said in the edit summary: "G4 says 'sufficiently identical copies', doubtful since there's [a source] from 2017 here and the afd was 9!! years ago. also, article got a green tick for dyk and is on-hold at GAN." It's better to let the AfD run its course. Skyshifter talk 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok, changing my response to reflect that. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as pure trivia, no lasting impact; anything relevant can be inserted into parent articles. Also fails WP:LASTING; all, save a couple, of the sources provided are from 2012, and if we customize our search of newsoutlets to establish when it was last discussed: it hasn't been, since 2020 at least. And they're not even mentions, let alone in-depth discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not notable for standalone inclusion. Some content can be merged into parent articles as explained above (though I oppose any redirect of this title). I agree that G4 speedy does not apply. Frank Anchor 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Changed to keep per the sources added by Beaniefan, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There are more sources, but I don't want to flood the page. The point is, lots of sourcing, and this is how we determine notability. The nom is correct there is some existing coverage elsewhere on WP. That's how it should work, limited coverage in other articles, all pointing to this the main article that has the most depth of detail, that doesn't require the reader to navigate around to piece information together. -- Green C 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You're either being intentionally dishonest or simply careless. The first of these sources I happened to check (the third one, sports fans 2.0, p30) makes absolutely no mention of this game. This is entirely about Rollen Stewart (that guy who dressed up in a clown wig with John 3:16 signs at games). I stopped looking after that due to a loss of trust. Is there any particular reason we should take any of your other sources seriously? Do any of them discuss the game in depth? 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Just on a hunch, I checked the other sources. Not a SINGLE ONE of these mentions the topic of the article. I strongly suggest you strike your comment as egregiously misleading. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I've not checked the others properly but on the last one, p.116 mentions the eye black and the start of the following chapter is where the January 8, 2012, game is covered. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A meaningless statistical coincidence, not a significant or notable game. Since Tebow made a deal about it, it can be mentioned/merged in his own article where there's already a relevant section that includes the background – it's his own broader evokation of 3:16 that has received the coverage. The sources above repeat the same statistics but have a greater focus on Tebow's use of 3:16 in general and do not warrant a standalone article as if this game itself were notable. Reywas92 Talk 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. Skyshifter talk 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I think the focus on these sources is more about Tebow's use of 3:16 than this game specifically, and per WP:NOPAGE this can be covered better in the main article. The article has irrelevant details like Roethlisberger's interception, and Hernandez's use of it would be related to Tebow's legacy not that of this game. Reywas92 Talk 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We are working through the Talk:3:16 game/GA1. I believe it will look and feel more encyclopedic as the review gets satisfied. It seems to be something that is widely noted in the press.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is ridiculous. Who scored what points and who won the coin toss are totally irrelevant to any of the coverage here. Even more ridiculous that you're doing your own OR and finding more arbitrary coincidences. Nothing about the game itself – which is covered at 2011–12_NFL_playoffs#AFC:_Denver_Broncos_29,_Pittsburgh_Steelers_23_(OT) – is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There was some attention for the statistical coincidence, but all of the background, significance, legacy is relevant to Tebow himself and his extended use of 3:16, not the game in particular. A topic for " Tim Tebow and 3:16" or " The Tebow Rule" makes more sense to expand on it as whole than to have a page like this, but stripping the impertinent details and duplication leaves just enough to merge. Reywas92 Talk 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling. Core reason for deletion ("it's covered elsewhere") is relatively weak in the first place: that's a great reason for an editorial discussion on the talk page, not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met. Jclemens ( talk) 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    ...not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met: Incorrect. WP:DEL-REASON No. 5 reads:

    Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

    The Wikipedia:Content forks guideline advises (emphasis added)

    A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.

    This is a fork of the aforementioned sections already at Tim Tebow. — Bagumba ( talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can you explain how WP:PROPERSPLIT is failed by this article? Jclemens ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:PROPERSPLIT in an informational how-to page. It is not a guideline. An actual guideline is WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

    In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article
    ...
    It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.

    WP:NSPORTSEVENT says similar:

    For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted.

    90+% of the context is already at Tebow's bio. Anything usesful, aside from the WP:NOTDIARY content, can be merged.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Has any of the "Keep" voters addressed WP:NOTABILITY? Because this page is mostly just trivia and a weird coincidence, not actually something that's very notable. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    My comment "The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" is a reference to WP:GNG. Skyshifter talk 11:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling." Did you even look at GreenC's? Not a single one of them even mentions the article topic in passing, let alone in depth! 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're right, actually. I did go back and look at GreenC's in depth and your critiques are fair. Lightburst's seem fine, unless I'm missing something there? Jclemens ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject is notable because (per the general notability guideline) "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability discussion also says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Some lasting coverage of the game I located:
  • BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's and Lightburst's sources, there is plenty of lasting coverage to meet GNG. And there was more to the game than what would be appropriate to cover in the Tim Tebow article. And there was more to the game than simply the 3:16 coincidences. For example, as mentioned in at least one of BeanieFan11's sources (but not I believe in the article as it stands now), it was the first overtime playoff game played under the new rules under which the game would not end in sudden death on a field goal on the first possession. Rlendog ( talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the sources given in the article and in this discussion show enduring notability of the game. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There appears to be enough sources and content on this game to warrant a stand-alone article. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Lightburst and BeanieFan11 that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan11. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 01:11, 26 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. I believe the nomination has been withdrawn and consensus is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Gukjeong chumyo

Gukjeong chumyo (  | talk | history | 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 identify any sources on Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Books. General search also brings up nothing that can establish notability. There may be information that can establish notability in Korean. If notability can't be established then content could be merged with Byeon Sang-byeok Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Animal, Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, it is sourced via pamphlet to its holding museum. Artworks on Wikipedia are considered to have notability if they have a museum source. It is by famous Korean artist Byeon Sang-byeok, so the article's existence here since 2009 has enhanced Wikipedia's Korean art collection. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do you have a link to that guideline? I couldn't find any art specific notability guidelines. Traumnovelle ( talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge It's a very Korean painting that has always been in Korea, so an absence of web sources in English (but using a Korean title, presumably) means very little indeed. We only seem to have about a dozen articles on individual Korean paintings, which is far too few, given their distinctive and old tradition. Byeon Sang-byeok, the artist, is a significant figure, with one only one other article on an individual work. I don't doubt there are lots of sources in Korean; perhaps someone from the Korean project can find some. Johnbod ( talk) 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong keep and no merge. Sufficient individual notability in Korean language [18] ( Kansong Art Museum), [19] ( Kyunghyang Shinmun), [20] ( The Dong-a Ilbo), and more. I'm sure it's covered extensively in print books on art too. toobigtokale ( talk) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If you're familiar with Korean could you add these into the article? Traumnovelle ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I can quickly put some stuff in; my to-do list is pretty long so I want to prioritize other major articles if that makes sense. Lot of important missing info about Korea on Wikipedia toobigtokale ( talk) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I'll take your word that the sources you've provided establish notability and change my stance to keep/withdraw the nomination. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:55, 21 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 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Morrisville killings

Morrisville killings (  | talk | history | 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 seem to meet WP:EVENTCRIT; as listed there [r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. All the references seem to merely report what happened in this awful thing, but there is no wider/long-term significance. Happy days, ~ Lindsay H ello 09:57, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Domestic killings are not uncommon and are not inherently notable. Sourcing doesn't seem to exist beyond reporting of the sequence of events as they happened. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:40, 24 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 no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership

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

Does not seem notable. Article cites three outlets, which I've machine translated. All article are fluff pieces on the subject, which is fine and can help constitute notability, but Emek seems wholly unreliable. Ynet is probably reliable. I would lean unreliable with Mida. Remsense 诉 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm wondering what sort of notability one looks for in a school. Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate the bar is set at notability within one's field and how high is that bar for "the field of schools"? Are only Harvard and Juilliard notable because they are in the news whenever some famous alumnus is appointed to SCOTUS or wins an Oscar? Initially, it appears that one can make a good argument that since other similarly notable schools have no article, then this should also have no article, but then maybe the WP:Be bold rule applies? So there's a bad article or two. I found another good article demonstrating that a) this school exists and that b) it's written about online and in newspapers and serves a role in society and in IDF military preparedness. 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @ DRosenbach: it sounds like you were reading WP:NPROF which covers people in academia. Schools are covered under WP:GNG or if the institution is for-profit then the GNG WP:NCORP sourcing guidelines might come into play. See WP:NSCHOOL. S0091 ( talk) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 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 IDBI Bank. ✗ plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IDBI Capital

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

Unsourced, written like a LinkedIn page, can't find anything on Google BrigadierG ( talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 13 March 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) 10:14, 20 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! 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Woodgrove Retirement Village

Woodgrove Retirement Village (  | talk | history | 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 indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But Zoglophie, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it. Elemimele ( talk) 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie •talk• 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    fair enough! Elemimele ( talk) 14:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Really just a housing development, we delete those all the time. James.folsom ( talk) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Housing developments are essentially businesses rather than municipalities, and need to pass WP:NBUSINESS. We have no evidence that this one does. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication of notability, sources are nothing more than directory listings and churnalism. -- Kinu  t/ c 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources present or found to establish notability. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence it passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG more broadly, or WP:NBUSINESS. Specifically, it fails my longstanding standards for estates of this type, because its far too small to be per se notable. Bearian ( talk) 15:52, 26 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 Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro)

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro) (  | talk | history | 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 should be a redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro); as an unopened subway station with no secondary coverage (or references at all), it fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL, but the WP:BLAR has been repeatedly reverted, so here we are. ~ A412 talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

MDTA Mahbatul Ulum

MDTA Mahbatul Ulum (  | talk | history | 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:NONPROFIT guidelines state that organizations, including schools, must meet specific criteria. Firstly, their activities should have a national or international scope. Secondly, the organization must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. However, in the case of this school, there are only two references available, and they do not directly pertain to the school. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the school is known nationally. Ckfasdf ( talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I cannot find sources about the school in a web search, hence there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Redtree21 ( talk) 07:56, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Green Globe Company Standard

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

Promotional article of a non-notable certification program. Largely unsourced and does not seem to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Most sources I can find are commercial sources that do not meet WP:RS, specifically websites of other companies with the certification that are providing customer-oriented information about it. Redtree21 ( talk) 08:02, 20 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. Thanks to User:Kuru for their comments. This probably could have been closed without a relist. Paid editors are becoming more sophisticated. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Manhattan Book Group

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

"Contributor Content" blogs fail WP:RELY, and thus fail ncorp. She was a fairy 06:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's a fact. The blog post is written by a brand marketing 'consultant' (First North Marketing), and has a clear disclaimer: ""Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY network were not involved in the creation of this content". USA Today isn't going to add silly adcopy to professional article like "a singular entity stands out as a symbol of innovation and creativity" or "this independent publishing house is breaking conventions, transforming the publishing landscape, and providing unparalleled opportunities for authors." That's just in the first paragraph; the rest is silly puffery. This is utter, amateur-hour garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Borderline Keep for me due to the Mariel Hemingway connection. Found this article. I know we don’t generally use YouTube as a source, but a video of Mariel endorsing Manhattan Book Group does exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CE80:E280:2517:F719:A387:A11 ( talk) 09:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
'marketsherald' is Hudson Coldblue blackhat SEO/PR farm pretending to be a news site. Same farm as the 'hudsonweekly' blackhat ref added by you to the article. Please note that you only get one vote per person; cycling to another IP on the same /64 in New Hampshire does not make you a new entity. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete company not notable and no source for notability found. Powerviki ( talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Seems notable based on news sources found in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.62.210 ( talk) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You added another blackhat SEO dump site, an advertorial on a PR site, and the same press release. As this "company" has been heavily engaged in paid placement and PR efforts, you'll need to dig harder to find actual reliable sources. I was not able to locate anything remotely notable. Frankly, the only keeps are a new COI editor, and two IPs - one of which is located in the same city as the group that runs the subject of the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a single source meets GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, not marketing PR and spin. HighKing ++ 21:59, 23 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! 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Al-Ishlah Mosque, Bengkalis

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:NBUILDING. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable article. Attempted to PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock/blocked editor). Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 20 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 TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

TAROM Flight 381

TAROM Flight 381 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One, the incident is fairly routine. Two, the only source is a user-contributed wiki, which, you know, isn’t quite a reliable source. — Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 20 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! 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alvino Kusumabrata

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:JOURNALIST. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 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! 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Shayamal Vallabhjee

Shayamal Vallabhjee (  | talk | history | 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 available sources include passing mentions, interviews, and profiles, although some lack reliability. Notably, there's insufficient substantial coverage from reputable third-party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Consequently, it fails to meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It's crucial to remember that notability isn't inherited, meaning that having notable clients doesn't automatically confer notability. GSS  💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Damian Conway

Damian Conway (  | talk | history | 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 could not find significant coverage of him to meet WP:BIO. Also does not meet WP:PROF, google scholar comes up with a namesake who is an expert in sexual health. LibStar ( talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are two claims to notability I looked at carefully. That he is an author, and that he is the three time winner of the Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility. I also considered NPROF but that one is a clear fail. So looking at these others, I looked up the Larry Wall Award, and was rather surprised that most hits were talking about Conway, the three times winner. I could only find one other winner [22] and this posting explains why [23]. In any case the award is just a Perl conference award [24] and I don't think this is significant enough to confer notability. So the other guideline I looked at was WP:NAUTHOR where there are two books that he has authored (and one he has contributed to). One of these has a page. Perl Best Practices is a stub article. The book has a number of reviews I could find, although the quality of reviews would need assessment. So is it a notable book?
My reason for not yet making this a !vote is that I would consider a WP:ATD such as a redirect, but it is not clear whether the book is notable, in which case the best outcome of this AfD would be to merge content here with the book stub (in a section on the author). If the book is of marginal notability, might it actually be better to redirect that stub here? Or if the book has no notability at all, maybe that should be deleted too. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Perl Best Practices book was a major publication and inspired several modules based on it. Perl is no longer widely used for programming, which is why references are a bit dated. But Damian's work in Raku is very significant. Hard to qualify with references, but I would suggest he is one of the most significant Australian contributers to open source programming. Teraplane ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 13 March 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) 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep No further comments on what I stated above but Teraplane calls the Best Practices book a major publication. Whether major publication == notable work is not the issue here, as the page is about the author. However a refusal to mention the book anywhere would seem to be a poor decision, but the author's page is the fuller, and under WP:PAGEDECIDE I would suggest that the book is merged into the author's page, to the benefit of them both. This would need to be kept in that instance. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:23, 20 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! 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kazu Shigenobu

Kazu Shigenobu (  | talk | history | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 04:37, 20 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 merge‎ to Red Wheel/Weiser. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Phanes Press

Phanes 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)

Not notable. Was purchased 20 years ago, no coverage before or after. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If they're an imprint, merge to Red Wheel Weiser Conari. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:23, 20 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 List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

WUOA-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:38, 20 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Beru Revue

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had "one notable radio hit", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, while music publicity mavens tend to indiscriminately attach the word "hit" to any song that ever got played on any radio station at all, so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching "hit" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability without a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about them shown, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:06, 28 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! 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: A few articles in the Delco Times; [26] is an example. I'm not sure how good of a source it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the above article in the Delco Times, I was able to find [27] [28] [29] ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – An easy pass per the WP:THREE raised by Editorofthewiki. TLA tlak 02:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 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 no consensus‎. given the divided opinion on the quality of sources available. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fidel Vargas

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

Previously nominated in a 48-article bundle which was closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size. This person has received some coverage in the LA Times, among other sources, but most of it is WP:ROTM election coverage. The only good thing I could find was this from the LA Times, this from Al Día News and maybe this from Hispanic Executive. The latter two are not major sources. The rest of the coverage that I could find is non-independent. He has held many positions within presidential administrations but none of them confer notability, and I don't think being named in a Time magazine makes you notable either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The article says he was a mayor. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Oops, I somehow missed that. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Baldwin Park CA is in no sense large enough that its mayors would get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but this article isn't what it would need to be. At the mayoral level, notability is not established by minimally verifying that the person existed, it's established by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this isn't doing that. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 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, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I can see that on the surface but the only seemingly decent non- WP:ROTM, independent sources I could find are the LA Times article linked in the nom statement (which is still about his political career, which definitely does not meet notability guidelines alone), the Time and Hispanic magazine mentions and I guess the Al Dia and Hispanic Executive articles; however, Al Dia is local Philadelphia newspaper and I'm not quite sure what Hispanic Executive is but it seems to be rather obscure. The article about his being appointed to the White House Fellowships Commission and Al Dia article about his being awarded the Manuel Torres Award don't really contribute to notability in my opinion, as those positions/awards don't confer notability, and the White House one is not independent. It's a possibility there could be more sources, but all in all, I just don't think there's enough here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 06:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep this article could state which sources demonstrate GNG instead of stating "looks notable". Specificity helps everyone here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete mayors are not notable under WP:NPOL and there is no sourcing which suggests he's notable for any other reason. SportingFlyer T· C 01:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
SportingFlyer, I would think that mayors are covered by WP:NPOL #2, though I don't think he meets it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That does cover them, but they aren't "inherently" notable. SportingFlyer T· C 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: normally I would agree being mayor of a mid-sized town does not meet WP:NPOL but in addition to the other sources, he was covered by the Wall Street Journal ProQuest  398324421 (small bio, described Baldwin Park as a "major town"), this retrospective by the LA Times when he decided not to run for mayor again ( continued here), and a 2015 piece about his work with the Hispanic Scholarship Fund by The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education ProQuest  1650380227. There are also other possible sources in Spanish I did not assess. S0091 ( talk) 17:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for finding more sources. I would probably consider the article on his retirement to be fairly WP:ROTM local political coverage, though the others aren't bad. Not sure if I'm sold yet, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 21:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources just found (see above this post)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per S0091, I added several articles found on newspapers.com. He has a difficult name to research since it is rather generic in California. Not only was he mayor but also a Hispanic leader as president of an important not-for profit scholarship fund catering to Latinos as well as appointed to various federal commission by 4 separate presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Patapsco913 ( talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pinging @ BottleOfChocolateMilk, @ Bearcat and @ SportingFlyer for their consideration given the improvements. S0091 ( talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Winton, Richard (November 17, 1996). "Young Baldwin Park Mayor to Step Aside". The Los Angeles Times. pp.  B12, B14 – via Newspapers.com.
Quintanilla, Michael (August 28, 1994). "Coming Home". The Los Angeles Times. pp.  E1, E5 – via Newspapers.com.
"All About the Numbers: Vargas Takes the Helm of the HSF". Latino Magazine. Winter 2014.
The first two are local coverage, I have no idea if the last is reliable or not considering how interview-y it is. If he's notable, it's not as a mayor. SportingFlyer T· C 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What is the point about local coverage? There is no policy against using local sources. If that were the case, Wikipedia would have very few profiles of mayors most of which are developed using local sources. I simply went to newspapers.com, did a search and quickly found a couple of articles where Vargas is the subject of the article. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are plenty of reliable secondary sources about Vargas that fit this definition amounting to significant coverage. A simple search also shows that he has appeared on Cspan numerous times not in relation to his mayor ship. Considering that he is a figure from the 1990s and 2000s, how did your review of the newspaper archive sites go? I came up with a couple of articles upon a cursory review. Patapsco913 ( talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
We do have very few profiles of mayors, because simply having coverage is not a guarantee the subject is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia - and almost every politician will have something about them written somewhere, even if they're a mayor of a small town. For mayors we will generally delete if they have only received coverage of being a mayor in local sources. SportingFlyer T· C 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer Vargas has received coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek among other national or non-local sources. S0091 ( talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer There are 1000s of profiles of mayors. The WP:BIO guideline does not exclude local coverage from consideration. There is WP:SECONDARY coverage as well as ongoing coverage of his career, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial per the objective WP:GNG and WP:BASIC standards. Did you look at the newspaper archives that are available via the Wikipedia library? 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Just commenting that every mayor is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so as Bearcat has said before, purely local coverage is generally unlikely to provide notability unless we want articles on every mayor in the country. In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about keeping it; it looks like this discussion will probably be closed as no consensus, given the final relist. At this point I'm kind of on the fence about notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. There is nothing in the guidelines about local coverage and it is completely false that a mayor solely with "local coverage" sources are unlikely to provide notability. Where did you get this? So a mayor in California needs to have a newspaper in Cleveland write an article about him or her? Pretty silly. And you seem to define everything as "local coverage". I ask did you check the newspaper archives and research the subject considering he was a mayor in the 1990s and fund administrator in the 2000s? Did you notify people who worked on the article? You seem to be on a mission to delete every mayor on Wikipedia with some made up rule about local sources or based on some modifiable essay about "Run of the Mill." The notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources". Patapsco913 ( talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
None of this is "made up" – it's how we typically review articles about people whose only claim to notability is being a local politician. Just because someone has something written about them somewhere does not mean they are necessarily eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T· C 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strawman much? Where did I say that if "someone has something written about them somewhere means they are eligible for an article?" Whether an article solely consists of so-called "local sourcing" does not mean that a mayor is usually non-notable. Did you check the newspaper archives or just do a google search on a pre-internet mayor from the 1990s? There is plenty of information already in the article to support a substantive article about the mayor's political impact not to mention his role as CEO of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and his service on four separate commissions spanning 4 presidencies. He has even appeared on CSPAN four times. Patapsco913 ( talk) 16:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If he's notable, it would be because he's a CEO. I will say it again, we generally do not include articles on mayors of small towns. SportingFlyer T· C 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Who is we? That is not in the guidelines at all. As I said before, the notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources". I would not deem a city of 75,000 a small town. Notability does not have to rest on one element: Vargas' was mayor with a significant impact as well as a Hispanic leader both documented in the article. You seem to be hung up on the size of the city which has no role in notability. Heck there is even sourcing from the Boston Globe and Newsday in the article. I guess your search for sources was pretty minimal, eh? Patapsco913 ( talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
He doesn't need a Cleveland article written about him, no. And sometimes local coverage can provide notability, yes; I just said that most of the time it doesn't, as every mayor will have a certain amount of local coverage. Yes, this one has more coverage than most of the other pages in the batch, and I am aware that not all sources are local; that is why I said I am feeling more neutral about deletion. And anyway, as for my "mission to delete all the mayors on Wikipedia", it was mostly just the failed Fidel Vargas batch. Unless a bunch of people come in to comment in the next four days, this discussion will go towards no consensus. I don't really care very much at this point, battle it out as you wish, but vitriol gets us nowhere. Also, I don't really see any more major contributors to notify; I guess I'll ping SDPLPauline. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I requested @ SportingFlyer's and others reconsideration, especially given @ Patapsco913's fantastic job improving the article, which Sporting has in WP:AGF provided. I disagree with their assessment in this instance but that's ok; it's why we have AfDs. Like @ AllTheUsernamesAreInUse says, there's no need for the discussion to be contentious. S0091 ( talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, Patapsco did put a lot of good work in on the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Vitriol seems like a strong word :-) I did not get snarky with anyone until they put words in my mouth which I do not appreciate. The ease with which I found sourcing on Newspapers.com indicates to me that a proper search was not done before nominating the article for deletion. The goal here is to improve Wikipedia and not to just blast through deletions. A mayor from the 1990s should be vetted before AFD via the newspaper archives (which often clears a paywall as well). If sources that establish notability are found, they should be added. The size of the city is not relevant. Local sourcing is sufficient (or else nearly every mayor on Wikipedia would be deleted...unless that is the goal). Personally, I would merge articles with mayors to their city rather than delete. Anyhow more people should learn how to maneuver in the Wikipedia Library. One might be able to save some articles from deletion and help to develop Wikipedia. Patapsco913 ( talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand your arguments. I agree that more people should join the Wikipedia Library; I will myself by the end of the month. If it's any consolation I nominated this before I nominated Paul Richards, so I knew less then. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:27, 25 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. (non-admin closure) 🍪 Cookie Monster 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Outline of the Book of Mormon

Outline of the Book of Mormon (  | talk | history | 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 isn't an article about a /thing/ or even a list. Its a list of lists related to Mormonism with no sources. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This is an outline, not a normal list, see Wikipedia:Outlines. I don't know why these exist, but they do, and we have a lot of them. This seems to be a decent one (though I'm unsure what they're really supposed to look like) so unless we want to delete every article in Category:Outlines I'd say keep this. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 03:40, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

ELML

ELML (  | talk | history | 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 are no citations in this article, and I can't find anything on the internet about this language besides papers from the authors. Those papers have a combined total of less than 100 citations. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I'm also mildly worried that this article was created by someone involved with the project. The article was created in 2006 by a user named Fisler. That happens to match the name of the first author on a paper about the language. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Benabaye

Benabaye (  | talk | history | 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 found in GBooks and GNews Archives. GNews hit says that a suspect from a drug den bust just happens to be from said baranggay. Alternatively, redirect to its town proper at Merida,_Leyte#Barangays -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 20 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 merge‎ to Kansas–Nebraska Act. There is a rough consensus not to keep the content as a standalone article. The Delete views have not provided a compelling reason not to merge the content into the proposed target, so this seems to be a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kansas and Missouri

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

There is no purpose in having a page dedicated to two states with separate pages, nor is there a reason to have a page dedicated to the relationship of two states. NotAMoleMan ( talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This is a good article. Title change is okay if the state names are kept in the title. Sources are reliable, and rich. They can support more discussion of the history of the two states as the US argued about slavery. I have added some more recent references on the continuing competition between the two states. Related articles focus on politics and the past; this article takes the story to the present century. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I still only see stuff related to the Act or sports. I think merging it into the Act's legacy while mentioning the present-day law against financial incentives for pulling from the other Kansas City and stuff would be enough. Aaron Liu ( talk) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge Civil War-related content would belong at Kansas–Nebraska Act#Aftermath, not here. You could just as easily have an article for any arbitrary combination of states, like Ohio and Michigan which fought a war and also has rival universities. Many other states also have shared metropolitan areas and can be said to compete or cooperate economically. This is really just WP:SYNTH, not a substantively notable topic that requires a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Reywas92: You have literally just described why an article of this type on Ohio and Michigan would not be arbitrary. Something like Delaware/Idaho or New Hampshire/New Mexico would be arbitrary. BD2412 T 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      Everything resulting from the war can be covered in the war's article. It's not too much. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      But it would be because the war already has an article and the university rivalry is irrelvant. Connecting those doesn't make an encylopedia article. Kansas City metropolitan area can also cover related content. Okay, bordering states aren't as arbitrary as those that don't, but there's New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, plenty of others that one could make whatever discussions of a rivalry, historical comparisons, or how their economies are related, but those just aren't articles we need. Reywas92 Talk 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Re: New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, yes, we actually could make pretty solid articles for all of those. Neighboring states often do involve themselves in rivalries along several dimensions of cultural significance, including athletic bragging rights due to cross-border proximities, and competition for business and natural resources. BD2412 T 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Those other articles are wholly legal and political, and not brought to the present. Kansas and Missouri had a major role in the slavery debate and the war, making them a unique pair of states. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Seems like you could just as easily have Kansas and Nebraska since the Act created both. Any pair of states is unique with some sort of relationship; we already have articles about the role in the war, with no need for this page. Reywas92 Talk 22:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is already well documented elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T· C 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Same can go for this article after we merge it. Aaron Liu ( talk) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act as per Reywas92, and the small amount of material not related could be merged to the individual states' pages. There is material here worth keeping but we have better articles for that. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we don't really need articles on 2 different similar places or similar topics. What next Jupiter and Saturn. Yes there is some content and sources but it it really appropriate for an article, such content could probably be contrived about many similar topics. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crouch, Swale: It wouldn't even be hard to write an article on comparisons between Jupiter and Saturn. Those have been compared by observers for thousands of years. BD2412 T 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    But we shouldn't. I and other poets have compared the rain to my tears for decades. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The points of comparison between the two largest neighboring gas giants in our planetary system are more than merely poetic. BD2412 T 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Does a comparison between Dickens and Hugo warrant an article? Aaron Liu ( talk) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That would revolve around whether there are substantial reliable sources specifically comparing and contrasting Dickens to Hugo. By the way, having poked around with the question, I am confident that I could write a killer article on the history of mythological, poetic, and literary metaphors comparing tears to rain. BD2412 T 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    But there aren't, and there aren't for Kansas and Missouri. Nearly all sources I find online are either encyclopedias or about Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry), which focuses on the sporting context as an extension of the war context. Even so, that article contains most of the background, and the only standalone parts of this article is some OR-y talk about the two Kansas City-s. Aaron Liu ( talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Article definitely should not be kept as-is. Would support a rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry or a redirect to relevant Civil War-era content over deletion, though. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We already have Bleeding Kansas, this topic is functionally duplicative. SportingFlyer T· C 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete without Objection to Creating a Completely Different Article There may be a notable topic on a Kansas City, Kansas–Kansas City, Missouri rivalry but the current article has too many problems to salvage: the text lacks details about a potential rivalry (i.e. the actual topic), instead the text wanders into the historical Kansas–Nebraska Act, it's not well named since it's not about whole states, it's not well sourced. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The choices I see are closing this as No consensus or adding another week for relisting and I'm taking that option. Of course the discussion can be closed at any time should a closer see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There is no need for an article like this. As for the Civil War history, that was adequately covered in its own article. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom and Reywas. The keep !votes aren't convincing about the point of this article's existence. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:04, 27 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 List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pilipinas News

AfDs for this article:
Pilipinas News (  | talk | history | 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 unknown. WP:Articles for deletion/Aksyon JournalisMO (2nd nomination) was closed as delete, so nominating later program. IgelRM ( talk) 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect (per Nate's alternative suggestion). We don't need more low-quality or stubbish articles of minor newscasts of the Philippines. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are now two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again for a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As nominator, I support the redirect to List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:25, 22 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! 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CodeRush

CodeRush (  | talk | history | 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 had a failed PROD several years ago on the basis that the sources were quality enough to warrant an article. I don't think this is true. The sources are all primary (both now and at the time of the PROD), and the secondary sources I could find online were self-published blogs that do not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated ( talk) 02:46, 20 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Peshawar mosque attack

2013 Peshawar mosque attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created 2 days after the event, I could find no coverage after June 2013 to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013, given the same rationale I gave with the last few AfDs (it's a terror attack so should probably be noted overall in terms of their security situation, likely mentioned somewhere in overall discussions of the issue). As with most of these cases, if there is later coverage it's almost certainly not in English, so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:58, 24 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 Worst Year of My Life Again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ned Napier

Ned Napier (  | talk | history | 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 didn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE which went into significant detail to pass WP:GNG. While he was the lead in Worst Year of My Life Again I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR as he hasn't had multiple significant roles. A possible redirect could be to Worst Year of My Life Again. Suonii180 ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again as an alternative to deletion. The current sourcing of the article is insufficient to serve as a standalone article. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 09:32, 20 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 00:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by WAPA-TV

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

Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and this list lacks any sourcing from non-primary sources as a grouping. Let'srun ( talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:35, 20 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2019 Makran massacre

2019 Makran massacre (  | talk | history | 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 could only find coverage from April 2019. No lasting effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge a (heavily abridged version, probably a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019, where it is mentioned with no detail. Seems a relevant note given their security situation. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge selectively to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. No evidence of sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:26, 24 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_20&oldid=1217127681"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE