Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 19	May 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Daniel Tinley[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor. No sufficient coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reason. I actually nominated it for speedy deletion like 20 seconds before you nominated it for deletion, so I think you overwrote my nomination since we were editing at the same time.

Gottagotospace (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gottagotospace: Oops, sorry! You can go ahead and restore the CSD tag if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just did that! I wasn't sure if I was supposed to delete the normal nomination for deletion stuff though. So now there's two banners: one about speedy deletion and one about normal deletion. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should leave the tag there. If an admin decides to speedy delete the article, then they will likely close this AfD as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to take up that much space, and this guy is pretty notable. Why can't he have a small Wikipedia page considering his fanbase and following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- He has 36 followers on Twitch. Gottagotospace (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

91 subscribers on youtube. Why is it so much trouble just to keep this one small page?

There is an article for an Estonian politician with literally one sentence on it http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Avo_%C3%9Cprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. If anyone with a small social media following was able to have an article about them on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would become extremely bloated. If Daniel becomes a notable actor and/or streamer in the future, then great - he can get an article then! But as of now, he's at the point in his career where he does not meet notability criteria. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, but you didn't respond to my initial point. Is it not already bloated with 1 sentence articles about totally random people? This guy has a following. Why is it so necessary to delete this page? What specifically bothers you about this page that you want to delete it within 1 hour of when it was created?

Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policing wikipedia must be a cool occupation, but you're also discouraging people from making their contributions, and what they consider to be notable to themselves and others.

Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the rules, I'm just informing you of them. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. I bet plenty of editors (including myself) would be happy to have an article about Daniel on Wikipedia once his career reaches a point where he meets those notability guidelines. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but he can just have this smaller, "bare-bones" sort of article, so his community knows. He has a pretty sizable fanbase, including me so that's why I feel this is good for him to have. He's a really nice guys and deserves a bit of recognition for his work. Thanks for the support

Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an attempt was made to speedily dele with this discussion open. —Railroadr20 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for noticing. Kind of suspicious indeed

Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BK Skottfint[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Giffarna[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Kozara (Sweden)[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Control Tower Team: Creating and Maintaining Confluence Pages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Control Tower Team: Creating and Maintaining Confluence Pages (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOT as a how-to guide, cannot be made into an encyclopedic article in any meaningful way that shouldn't be at Confluence (software). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given above. Also, it seems to me that the article is essentially promotional. JBW (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Tower Team: Creating and Maintaining Confluence Pages

Terrell Hines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Maybe per WP:ATD, It do be redirected to List of American musicians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [1], [2], [3], [and [4] doesn't make up WP:NSONG. Apart from one or two being an interview is not a criteria for inclusion. Then musician hasn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, but this few mentions shows there is possibility of being notable in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UM.SiteMaker[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable web software. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability and certainly doesn't seem to have significant coverage.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.

Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.

Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

AFP (February 19, 2021)
Arab News (April 4, 2021)
NYT (February 26, 2021)
Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
Business Today (March 2, 2021)
The Print (February 13, 2021)
CBC (April 4, 2021)
Forbes (May 7, 2021)
New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Zimbabwe, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, at best, draftify). No indication how this single/planned/"friendly" cricket match meets WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. If, after the event occurs, it is clear that WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met, then the article could be recreated. As it stands, this seems to be a classic example of why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am frankly baffled by the two "keep" recommendations below. Both from seasoned editors. But both of a type expressly discussed in WP:ATA. ("All test series have articles - and so this one should too" is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Not least sports fixtures that haven't yet occurred. And "There may not be coverage now - but there definitely will be" is a WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED argument. Where the community agrees that "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already". Not whether they could in the future....) Baffled..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by the noms statement: "It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV"; this perhaps illustrates they are not familiar with Test cricket, or the importance of the match, as it will certainly generate significant coverage. AA (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nominator could have framed their own argument better (and perhaps said "it is very possible [SIGCOV won't be generated]"; Rather than the more definitive/predictive "it is very likely/unlikely [SIGCOV won't be generated]"). But the fact remains that AfD discussions should be based on the sources and evidences of notability that exist at the time of the discussion. Not those that might exist in the future. Or would have existed in the past had conditions been different. Personally I don't understand why, even if you fully believe that sources/evidences will arise in the future, you wouldn't see that as an argument to draftify/incubate. Until that actual SIGCOV actually exists... (Also, familiarity with test cricket [or expertise in any field] isn't a precondition to AfD discussions or a prerequisite to dispassionate evaluation of sources.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A series between two ICC full members who will play a Test match, the highest level of the international game. This match will receive coverage and WP:SIGCOV as it is the first Test match to be played in Northern Ireland (a historically notable moment) and only the second Test match played on the island of Ireland. AA (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every Test cricket series, even a one-Test series like this, has an article. Sammyrice (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's likely that coverage will exist at the time of the test, but for now draftify as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Korniychuk[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	1. "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	2. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the position of the head of the Pervomayska district state administration of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	3. ^ "About the appointment of A. Korniychuk as the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	4. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the post of Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	6. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	7. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

// Timothy :: talk 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject would pass WP:NPOL as a member of the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, but this needs a source. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the archived source here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't BLP concerns apply to the drafts too? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Yes BLP still applies to drafts, no it is not anywhere near as rigorous as what mainspace requires. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SOS (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Enahnced some, but recreation of previously deleted subject. Mikeblas (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Ridgers[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has been attached to clubs at a higher level, but has never appeared above the (part-time) Scottish fourth tier. No evidence of significant coverage - the two references are to an article about his brother, in which he gets a passing mention, and a match report of a Highland League game. I have been unable to find much else other than this BBC article [[5]] about him joining Inverness Caledonian Thistle as loan back-up; he was a substitute for them in the SPL, but made no appearances. Jellyman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Jellyman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAHDUOO Saxophone[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Taiwan. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Lazarus Arnold[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG as the references are mostly poor quality passing mentions, and collectively these references don't constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Uhooep (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Liga 1 U-14[edit]

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

Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any coverage of this specific statistic beyond the list maintained by Baseball-Reference.com ([6]), having searched the internet, Google Books, and Google Scholar. We appear to fall short of WP:LISTN, and this title does not seem to make for an appropriate redirect to any more general article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This title is so oddly specific that it took me a second to figure out what the list even was. This is not a notable topic for a list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, baseball is notorious for keeping extremely specific records. But that doesn't mean every possible statistic meets LISTN, and currently we've identified only a single source covering this statistic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Kotzé[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077)[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:FAIL etc. I think this article should be WP:TNTed; I tried salvaging it by throwing out all unreliable sources (a large group of WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SELFPUB Polish-language websites with little to no editorial review or control over contents published by users or website owners), but there is almost nothing of historical value left. Even the sources that I think might be WP:RS enough seem to WP:FAIL consistently in confirming what the article claims, e.g. Bolesław making all of Kievan Rus' a tributary state of Poland and collecting taxes. Although some sort of Polish military action in Kievan Rus' seems to have taken place in 1077, there is no reason to believe king Bolesław II the Bold was personally participating in it, nor was there a siege of the city of Kiev (Kyiv). If anything, there was fighting over Chernigov. By far, most details appear to have been made up by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz writing 400 years later. (I've added some information in the lead section about that). It is plain that the entire article is not really about the dynastic succession crisis that happened in Kievan Rus' at the time; instead, there are all sorts of fanciful tales about excessive celebrations of victory and sexual immorality within the Polish army (immorality that is blamed on the Rus'/Ruthenians that they allegedly conquered) that are not historically credible as narrated. Pretty much all of this information appears directly or indirectly based on the unreliable chronicle of Długosz.

Moreover, User:SebbeKg created this article on 19 February 2024, 3 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. Judging by User talk:SebbeKg, several other of his articles (beginning on 17 December 2023) have been PRODded or nomination for deletion for that reason, but so far, it appears none have actually been deleted (unlike several templates that have been). I think this one should go. It is full of original research and bad sources. The little factual value there may be, is probably not enough for a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE), and can be better incorporated in related articles about the members of the dynasties involved. (It might be necessary to critically review SebbeKg's other articles as well, but that's for a follow-up discussion). NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Heinemann[edit]

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

Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met.Uhooep (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries in Australia[edit]

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

I have split the article into articles by state: List of libraries in Western Australia, List of libraries in Northern Territory, List of libraries in Australian Capital Territory, List of libraries in Tasmania, List of libraries in South Australia, List of libraries in Victoria, List of libraries in New South Wales, and List of libraries in Queensland. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - no policy based rationale for !delete offered by nom. JMWt (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to Lists of libraries in Australia and link to the per-province lists. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I like @Walsh90210's approach. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at List of Latin phrases (full) for a potential solution on how to handle this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Hanekom[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the Namibian golfer of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Verwey[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. L. Ashwini[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K. Antony[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendele Olimpului[edit]

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

This article lacks sufficient notability and reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Despite being a children's book, the article does not provide significant coverage in independent sources that demonstrate its impact or importance in literature. Additionally, the article has been tagged for multiple issues, including being an orphan and needing more citations, indicating persistent problems that have not been addressed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Schoeman[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion pricing in New York City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Congestion pricing in New York City

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

It's nothing more than a money grab. P.S. i know the subject is article-worthy but notability guidelines and not etched in stone and there may be exceptions. so please let the community vote as to whether the NYC MTA deserves to start collecting money from commuters this summer --RailRider 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See [7]
Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale is offered. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles are based on significant coverage not whether we think something is a 'money grab'. The nominator even admits the subject warrants an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I think any of WP:CSK 2, 3, or 4 would apply, since based on their username and the similarity of this to WP:Articles for deletion/Janno Lieber the nominator is most likely a sock of User:Railrider12. Hatman31 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jarrod Halliday[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of squad announcements etc, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPC SYSTEM[edit]

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

Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:

Sources 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14-17 are sponsored content/press releases and not independent.
Sources 3, 5, and 11 are WP:INTERVIEWS.
Sources 4, 8, and 9 are in WP:TRADES publications and thus ineligible for notability. (Source 4's over-the-top language praising the company and its CEO gives it the ring of sponsored content or paid placement.)
Source 6 is a primary source.
Source 7 purports to be a clip of a newspaper article but it is hosted on the subject's own website and does not include the date of publication, and search to verify on the publication's site turns up no result.
Source 13 is a straight-up advertisement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Singh Debbarma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Royalty and nobility, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie D'Souza[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian; fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. We would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and a BEFORE search did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Sydney 2023 season[edit]

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

Cannot draftily without consensus because it is a disputed draftification. This is unreferenced, and there ought to be a better route than AfD for things like this. However here we are. Draftify if it is not properly referenced. If good references are provided please let me know and, if the rules allow me to withdraw the nomination, I will do so. (Obviously AfD is not cleanup, except that in this circumstance it is) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items[edit]

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

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amader Choto Russel Shona[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable Source. - AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing Sherlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Maulawin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to unreliable sources. While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Philippines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The citation to The Inquirer is decent, although academic sources should be preferred for religion topics. Otherwise, I can find no coverage of this subject outside the publications of the Philippine Independent Church itself, which are not independent of the subject, having searched in English, Spanish and Filipino on Google Scholar, Books, and the internet, having also searched for plausible colloquialisations of the name, such as "Mahal na Birhen ng Noveleta", "Nanay Paz de Noveleta", etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Philippines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ahmadullah[edit]

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

Reference are self published, primary sources and promotional. These sources do not establish notability of the person. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader)[edit]

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

BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:

Source 1, 5, 13, and 19 are oral histories or personal papers/writing by the subject and thus primary sources. Source 5 also includes an unattributed biographical note, but it is published by the Labor Archives of Washington, which cannot be an independent source on the topic of Jeff Johnson, a local labor leader. The union alliance that Johnson led is listed as a major funder of the archives and Johnson was himself a board director of the Labor Archives.
Source 2 is to WP:BALLOTPEDIA, about whose reliability there is no consensus.
Sources 3 and 8 are to a newsletter published by Johnson's organization and thus not independent.
Sources 4, 6, and 7 are to a labor-specific industry publication and thus ineligible for notability per WP:TRADES.
Source 9 and 11 are local news blogs that are mostly reprints/paraphrases of an organizational press release.
Sources 12 and 14-18 are WP:ROUTINE coverage of Johnson in articles that focus on other issues on which he is invited to comment.

In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Washington. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously stated in my discussion with you that the article from the Tacoma News Tribune counts as a reliable secondary source. If that and source 10 count as significant coverage, I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. In addition, I would argue that the other coverage of Johnson in the Seattle Times and Everett Herald constitute significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The Herald and Tribune are real independent news organs (not just blogs) from Tacoma and Everett, Washington, which are the 3rd and 7th largest cities in the state, respectively. Labor history is a traditionally underrepresented field of history, and coverage of leading figures like Johnson on Wikipedia helps promote research. Deleting this article would be contradictory to Wikipedia's efforts to increase diversity in biographies. Mathieulalie (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I realized the Tacoma News Tribune piece is mostly a reprint of a press release, which makes it a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Sunnah Foundation[edit]

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

This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News1 (Thai TV channel)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sole cited source does not appear to actually mention News1 (นิวส์วัน) or its former name 11News1. Web search results for the Thai name did not turn up any usable references, although my ability to search in Thai is admittedly limited. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Thailand. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D&W Performance[edit]

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

All of the sources in the article appear to be from the company and I couldn't find anything meaningful about the company in either Google or Google News. It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York, site of its headquarters. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and New York. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox[edit]

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

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. Nominated by inexperienced user. Verified, recognized settlements are never deleted. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sauviat[edit]

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

Delete A page for every municipality in every country might not merit a place on Wikipedia. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lap Corner, Indiana[edit]

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

A pure GNIS stub about, well, the only things I could find suggested that "lap corner" is a surveying term, but I couldn't verify that. Anyway, there's nothing there and it seems there never was. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegepet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review of references below.

Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.

Extended content

Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.
The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
"Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
James Peden's book is self-published.
Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.

31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.

First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Burke (musician)[edit]

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

(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth scientist)[edit]

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

Not notable Akeosnhaoe (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I found no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that can establish notability. The sources are just passing mentions, and the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. The majority of the article is also unsourced. GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with well cited works as shown at Google Scholar here and has won a notable award Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology so deserves to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Events, and Colombia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a crash with 9 fatalities is not an everyday occurence, it succeeds WP:NOTNEWS due to the number of fatalities and is the second most fatal helicopter crash this year second to the Lumut Mid-air collision this year, it is the single most fatal crash this year also. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is not an everyday occurence doesn't mean it has to be included. If we were to do this, we would have hundreds of articles on accidents that are likely not notable enough to be included in wikipedia other than the number of deaths.

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. All news coverage ended three weeks ago. Even searching the term brings up different helicopter accidents not related to this event.

All news sources whether cited or not are all primary sources without much analysis of the event and are all short in length. The event doesn't have much significant coverage with no secondary sources.

If a helicopter with three people on board crashed and it were the second deadliest (or first) helicopter accident of the year, would an article on that accident need to be created? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS this should be deleted. Frankly 2024 Lumut mid-air collision probably should be deleted as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Island Festival[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Singapore. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pahle India Foundation[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. GSS ^💬 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I found nothing that can establish notability to the subject, It subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 13:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Crossing, Indiana[edit]

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

Baker, as can be seen in the quotation, does not say that there was an elevator here, and I see no sign of it. At any rate, there's precious little sign of anything else here. Survey says this was just a freight station. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The 1936 source refers to "instrumental in building a loading station for grain". In our current era, this loading station is referred to as "Grain elevators are facilities at which grains are received, stored, weighed, and then distributed for direct use, process manufacturing, or export."Grain Elevators. Editor Sweet kate was merely using modern terminology, but it's the same thing. I have added the clarification to the article, and sourced it. — Maile (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear enough for a speedy keep. The article currently says: "Hoffman Crossing is an unincorporated community in ..." Maile, is it a community? Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwik PRO Analytics Suite[edit]

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

I appreciate the paid disclosure from the creator of this article, but I don't see this meeting NCORP and it should have gone through AfC. Similar appears to be have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination). Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [8]), which in counts as trivial coverage under "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ([9]). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ([10] is written by their PR manager, [11] is written by a "guest writer", and covers a merger which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, Software, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my previous assessment of this aricle before my BLAR, I substantially agree with the assessment of potential sources. All I have to add is that I reiterate my recomendation to the article creator that any such future edits go through the appropriate processes (Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Edit requests). The community's patience is not infinite, and while I do not pretend to be a barometer in this specific regard, moving through the proper channels may reduce the pace at which such patience wears. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Akbar[edit]

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

Based on the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Thumbprint, I still do not think this passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There is not enough SIGCOV in RSs to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doms in Jordan[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article, Dom people seems better than a redirect to Romani diaspora. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Jánošík[edit]

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage for this Slovak men's football player to meet WP:GNG. The only news website I found regarding him is an injury, but something tells me that it's more of a trivial mention. Using the keyword "Lukáš Janošík" on Google, even with "site:.sk", my search results only came up with database, club websites, passing mentions, and *facepalm* random namesakes. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Over 130 first-tier games over a 9-year period, 2016–17 league champion as well as one stint playing abroad - usually doesn't look like a deletion candidate. I haven't had the time to look for sources yet. Geschichte (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some quick links, assessment later. [12] [13] [14] [15] Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Merrill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as he was defeated in the run for a seat in South Dakota State Senate. WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Ramanlı[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — He seems to be a parliamentarian which isn't mentioned in the article.[16] Semsûrî (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Semsûrî Hmm, okay, but none of the offices I see here are NPOL passable. Unless there's something else you mean with "parliamentarian". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By parliamentarian I mean he's a member of the national parliament since 2023 which I assume passes NPOL per: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office..." Semsûrî (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, now the article clearly says that as it was not before, and I couldn't a source that says that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on clear WP:NPOL pass now. I will withdraw this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [17]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found only one potentially WP:RS online, but that is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The actress is also not eligible for any of the WP:NACTOR criteria (no significant roles in notable films or significant contributions to the field). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. The page needs improvements, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 significant roles in notable productions? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isidingo/Maggie Webster; The Story of an African Farm/Tant Sannie. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that her role in Isidingo is significant, it is one of many small parts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ ; https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2013-07-09-isidingo-gets-a-15-year-rewind/ ; https://www.dstv.com/kyknet/af-za/blad/desember-2017/vat-n-vet-kans-om-gewig-te-verloor/nuus ;https://www.republikein.com.na/nuus/vat-n-vet-kans-2018-09-07... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Gama[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Portugal. Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#1 applies as no deletion rationale has been presented. Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual Featured at a World Cup and for a minor nation, struggling to see suitable sourcing but there maybe more offline. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A week has not passed since the rationale was added. It should have been there the moment the AfD was posted, not tagged on later. This should have been closed immediately for lack of rationale. The original lack of rationale suggests WP:BEFORE issue. The lack of rationale other than noting lack of sources, including failure to discuss notability, still suggests WP:BEFORE issue. Do we know anything about the individual covered by the article? Did the nominator "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labiobarbus cyanopareja[edit]

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

Delete It is a species of fish. Even Fishbase has no photos. Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every species is considered notable. The absence of a photo doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logan Cousins[edit]

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

Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article says nothing other than the subject is a mayor which fails NPOL. The sources are obvious WP:ROUTINE coverages and do not count towards GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Reference Library[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dearne & District F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC because there aren't any reliable secondary sources and fails WP:NTEAM because they only play in the minor-leagues. Plus, I searched for them online and there are no reliable secondary sources that feature the team in any kind of significant depth, unless you count the Barnsley Chronicle which I don't.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have just been promoted to the 10th tier of English football - all of the hundreds of other clubs at that level have an article. There are plenty of sources and more will follow Kivo (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK2/4 (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "CERT," "CERTIN," and "CERT India," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a government agency, not a company. Article needs some cleanup, but I don't think it's worthy of deletion. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moxie Software[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [18] [19] [20]... "not great" would be an understatement. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, California, and Texas. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Tirana[edit]

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

Article is based on 1 primary source and merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Like many other embassies, this one occupies an architecturally significant building. The corresponding article in the Albanian Wikipedia at sq:Ambasada_Italiane_në_Tiranë, provides some information abut the building's status as a Cultural Monument of Albania that I have added to the English article. Several photos of the embassy are on Commons at commons:Category:Embassy_of_Italy,_Tirana. It is always a good idea to check an article's counterpart in the Wikipedias of other languages before nominating it for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay[edit]

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

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands

"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."

So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, Move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a perfect scenario, these all should probably have been put on Wikisource. Looks like someone started such an idea at Wikisource, The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, but it never got beyond that. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
The Watchtower and Awake!

The Secret to Family Happiness

Questions Young People Ask

Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield[edit]

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

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

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just about enough here to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee[edit]

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

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([21][22][23]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Dragaš[edit]

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

The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Serbia. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wells[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog. She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama. Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she does have a Wikipedia page, most of her roles seem to be minor, except Get Some In! in which she has acted in 21 episodes, but as a minor role. She doesn't meet the notability criterion. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kisses at Fifty was a one-off TV play, but an important one, where she had an important role. It was one of the best-known plays in Play for Today, and the BBC repeated it quite recently. Here role in Get Some In! wasn't that minor, she appears in the list of characters, and in the box at the start (and I did not put her there). PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to pass WP:NACTOR for 2 significant roles in notable productions. More sources wouldn't hurt. I would have suggested a redirect to Kisses at Fifty, but her role in Get Some In! is also rather significant. Worst case scenario, that might be a solution, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness[edit]

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

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion. --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles. --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:

Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.

While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition. --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally only about the festive challenge, but was renamed and expanded 3 years ago. Any rivalry between them appears no different than most other clubs in the area so the first part of the article could be section moved into West Yorkshire derbies. The festive challenge could be kept as a separate article but needs some improvement – currently this section is poorly sourced and incomplete (sources indicate it stared before 2009: BBC Sport, RFL). EdwardUK (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [24] [25]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer information and redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [26]. EdwardUK (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the "West Yorkshire Derby" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist[edit]

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Software. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:

Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.

The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are:

https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia/hypelist-aplicacion-compartir-recomendaciones-que-necesitas-movil_2024020765c3721a9d142a0001894b5d.html https://www.elcorreo.com/sociedad/hypelist-nuevo-proyecto-exitoso-emprendedor-espanol-triunfa-20240415142712-ntrc.html They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future.~~ I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [27]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".

Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:

This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [28] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word is notable in its own right given the tango and the discussion of its length in reliable German language sources, but given there's another merge suggested to a different page, I think a merge to the company makes more sense if that is the chosen deletion alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a particularly good reason to keep the article though -- "gone down in legend"? Really? Come gather 'round, kids, while I tell you the story of the great Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft. How do sources "report" a word? None of what you're saying makes any reasonable sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to German nouns § Compounds, where a brief mention might be appropriate. You might even be able to justify a standalone article on long German words, with this example certainly worth mentioning, but WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOPAGE pretty strongly favor not having a standalone article here. There's simply nothing to say about the word itself other than "it's long". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, just one of many made-up extensions of that word. There are no reliable sources, unlike for the Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which used to be a real law. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gál[edit]

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

Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Romania. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now.Shinadamina (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two GNG passing sources in foreign language Wikipedia. I imagine there will be sourcing offline also, given he won well over 80 caps for his nation and appeared in 3 World Cups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE. I added some references from the corresponding article in Romanian. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jon Forshee[edit]

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

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Airespring[edit]

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAIA Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. The guideline states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH (non-independent) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too:

2014 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: only mentions about the road as one of the areas of frequent cutting-trip actions by jeepney during 2010s. Less weight on the roads, more weight on the behavior of jeepneu and tricycle drivers and their impacts to the commuters.
2018 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: mainly talks about Puliscredibles film as an entry of the Metro Manila Film Festival, with the road being mentioned once as part of the parade float's route.
2019 Philippine News Agency article: "NCRPO director, Maj. Gen. Guillermo Eleazar said joint operatives of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), NCRPO's Regional Special Operations Unit (RSOU) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines in coordination with the Chinese embassy, swooped down on the Golden Unicom Technology, Inc. 7th Floor, Millennium Building on NAIA Road on Wednesday night." (Brief "cameo appearance" of the road in the article as the address of the incriminated Chinese-operated establishment). This is also the same case as the Inquirer article of the same news.
2018 photo essay article of the Philippine News Agency: not strong enough to provide GEOROAD compliance of "NAIA Road" article. Also the case for this 2022 photo article of the same news outlet.
2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only about a traffic rerouting advisory with NAIA Road as among the roads mentioned once.
2024 tabloid story of Remate: only about a crime incident that occurred along the road.
2023 GMA News article: only mentions a severe traffic congestion along the road as a result of a nearby fire
2016 article of Philippine Primer: mostly about NAIA Expressway with a single, fleeting mention of NAIA Road: "In a report published by Business Mirror, the newly completed NAIA Expressway’s Phase 2-B, link from NAIA Road to NAIA Terminal 3, Villamor and the Skyway System, will be toll-free. This will be from Decemeber 21, 2016 to Jan. 10, 2017, a representative from the Department of Transportation said."
2018 Philippine Star article: only mentions the road as where a tricycle driver disgusing as a law enforcer was arrested.
2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only mentions the road as among addresses impacted by a temporary power interruption.
2014 GMA News article: more on the damaged electric pole than the road itself (where it is located).

The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ninoy_Aquino_International_Airport#Ground_transport per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zobel Roxas Street[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GEOROAD guideline which states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

The four existing sources here do not support the article: both the DPWH sources are non-independent since the DPWH is the government agency that maintains and manages the national roads like Zobel Roxas Street (see WP:INDEPENDENT). The third source is from a real estate company, but the current "About us" page does not state the origins of the road (failed verification). The fourth citation is a vintage US-published map, and it is uncertain if it can be used as a reliable source for the history of the road.

A brief search on news content on Google does not give fruitful results. The only reliable source is an old news about a fire that hit a commercial building along the street; the rest of the news search results are mostly hotel sites, travel sites, social media advertisements of establishments found along the road, and other obviously unreliable and unencyclopedic sources. All in all, "Zobel Roxas Street" is not notable per GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

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

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017, where it is mentioned. If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance. The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary. Or commentary on the documentary. If that is provided I would change my vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles. I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.

The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact. The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this[29]. It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled). The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it. The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Recently deceased Russian diplomat. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	1. www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	2. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 No. 348 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mozambique”" . Archived from the original on 2019-01-26 . Retrieved 2017-09-14 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 16, 2018 No. 76 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Swaziland on a part-time basis”" . Archived from the original on 2018-02-16 . Retrieved 2018-02-16 .
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	4. ^ www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Obit based on government sources, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	5. ^ "Russian Ambassador to Mozambique Died" . TACC (in Russian) . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .

BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, and an interview, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First and foremost, lower your tone while nominating the article for deletion. Secondly, government decrees can be used as secondary sources as if you can type the full name in a Russian, many sources will pop up, (in Russian of course), apart from the official government statement. Here's my third point, he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office. Would you delete the ambassador of the United States of Mozambique for that reason? Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office Ambassadors are not inherently notable, several hundred have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 of the sources are primary. The other is routine coverage of his unfortunate death. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm leaning to keep, but if if it's drafted... I wouldn't be surprised as well.Ivan Milenin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 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) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV	https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html

Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company.

I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV. Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [30]. The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act.

Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE ("promos") or on what basis are "people to watch" type articles excluded? As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author. It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [31] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed. The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion.

I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards. Shazback (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ryder[edit]

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

Very questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [32], [33],[34]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Junior (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: "keep" this article has been edited to comply to NPOV since it's nomination allied by a declaration of COI from editors in the View AfD the page in its current existence complies with NPOV User:Gold Junior Talk 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim[edit]

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

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [35], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [36]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If found non-notable/deleted, it could be copied entirely into Kulim District. CMD (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [37], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Loock[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLNN-CD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Minnaar[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players There is this, but would be nice to have a bit more for a GNG pass. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited[edit]

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

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All refs fail WP:SIRS in one way or another, so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have not been able to find anything either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also comfortable with a redirect to KT Corporation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UtherSRG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Seyedi[edit]

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

BLP fails WP:GNG and all relevant biography guidelines. The basic problem is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Quick review of existing sources: 1, 3/8, and 4 are WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL coverage, not significant mentions. Source 2 has no reference to the subject. 5, 9 and 10 are primary source bios. 6 and 7 are trivial mentions in lists of speakers. 11-15 are references to the subject's own writing and thus ineligible for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to point to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axtell High School (Nebraska)[edit]

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

This is not actually Axtell High School, as near as I can tell, but Axtell Community School. There is an actual school that is a combination of junior high and high school in Axtell. It's at a different address. See here. In any event, the article is a nothing, consisting of one sentence that says it's a school. If the community decide for some reason to retain the article, the name needs to be corrected, and I'm not sure about the data in the infobox. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like a hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg[edit]

The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".

However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art detriment the understanding of the topic in question? Do both cover arts convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this discussion. Deleting this will cause a disruption of detriment the understanding of the topic in question, and both covers provides both the same and the different facts. This is an alternative cover so it can't violate both criterions. The song is also inadequate without the American one, cause this is a country-specific cover, and specific covers are distinctive with global versions. This image was also displayed in a correct place. Kys5g^talk! 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing an ongoing discussion (old revision)? I doubt an admin will take that into account. Furthermore, being an alternative cover is neither a reason to keep this cover art nor a reason it complies with NFCC. Moreover, being "a country-specific cover" doesn't make understanding of the song adequate. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabrina Spellman (Melissa Joan Hart).png[edit]

Part of this image appears in Getty Images. Violates WP:GETTY... and WP:NFCC#2. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as press photo and no free equivalent (the person depicted is still living) Kys5g^talk! 09:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a promotional photo, but whatevs. George Ho (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image has been replaced with the promotion still of the final season.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the newer photo also appears in Getty Images. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FaceTime screenshot.png[edit]

The entire software is copyrighted, but this is a screenshot containing nothing complex for copyright with some text and simple icons and shapes. An ineligible portion of the entire copyrighted content isn't copyrighted. Kys5g^talk! 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Old Believer churches in Latvia[edit]

Propose merging Category:Anglican church buildings in Latvia to Category:Anglicanism in Latvia and Category:Anglican church buildings in Europe
Propose merging Category:Old Believer churches in Latvia to Category:Old Believer movement and Category:Churches in Latvia

Nominator's rationale: Very small categories with 1 and 2 members respectively. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21th-century disestablishments in the Central African Republic[edit]

Propose renaming Category:21th-century disestablishments in the Central African Republic to Category:21st-century disestablishments in the Central African Republic

Nominator's rationale: typo in name, should be 21st-century, not 21th Bookworm-ce (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Militia in the United States[edit]

Propose merging Category:Militia in the United States to Category:Militia of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Older duplicate of Category:Militia of the United States. The replacement to redirect was reverted for the sake of discussion Solidest (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finding Nemo characters[edit]

Propose merging Category:Finding Nemo characters to Category:Finding Nemo

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Black Parade (rock opera)[edit]

Propose renaming Category:The Black Parade (rock opera) to Category:The Black Parade

Nominator's rationale: To match with The Black Parade. The Black Parade (rock opera) doesn't even exist currently as a redirect, and I don't particularly see why it would need to. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Black Parade (without "The") offers multiple alternative meanings. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Wall (rock opera)[edit]

Propose renaming Category:The Wall (rock opera) to Category:The Wall

Nominator's rationale: To match with The Wall. I don't see why the disambiguation would be necessary. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in Punjab[edit]

Propose merging Category:1930s in Punjab‎ to Category:1930s in India and Category:Punjab Province
Propose merging Category:1940s in Punjab‎ to Category:1940s in East Punjab
Propose merging Category:1950s in Punjab‎ to Category:1950s in Punjab, India
Propose merging Category:1960s in Punjab‎ to Category:1960s in Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Besides Punjab is divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, so the 1950s and 1960s categories should not exist anyway. Since the content of these categories is about Punjabi film which is primarily about film in India, I have added East Punjab and Punjab, India as targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions[edit]

Propose merging Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions

Nominator's rationale: Technically all G13 eligible AfC submissions are candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. I see little reason to isolate this category since the latter category will give a larger list for users to find a draft and update so it does not meet G13. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ These are two categories for two very specific and different use cases. The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions tracks not only drafts that are 6 months of inactivity, but also 5 months of inactivity. This category is specifically for AfC reviewers and other editors to rescue these drafts, if the topic is notable or has turned notable, before the drafts hit the guillotine block at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, which is an outright CSD category that is meant for draft of 6 months of inactivity and above. In my experience, the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category has been used by well-meaning editors, and if there are dummy edits made nefariously, these editors should be surfaced at an appropriate forum. Merging the categories will not resolve the behavioural issue, they will just monitor the CSD category more rigorously to make the dummy edits before an admin can action on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is meant to contain drafts of more than 5 months old then the category name is obviously not clear enough. The category is currently empty, so is anyone actively using it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit of a misnomer to say that because it is empty no one is "actively using it"; the category is automatically populated based on the age of the draft; if there are no drafts that are old enough then it will be empty (hence the {{empty category}} tag). Given that we have (literally) hundreds of drafts submitted every day, and only a fraction of those are ever worked on past their initial decline, I would say that someone is keeping an eye on it to make sure that drafts worth keeping are saved, and drafts worth nuking are then G13'd. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is probably never populated. Note that quarry:query/25817 yields 115 drafts as of now, while this is supposed to replicate the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That quarry was last run in 2018... Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It also, as of about thirty seconds ago, has three pages in it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Just so I don't have to keep updating this page, it has 0 pages as of the time of last refresh. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: I believe you are thinking of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions (5-6 months), which is a different category from this one (6+ months). See Template:AfC submission/draft (lines 22-23) or the description on each category's page. SilverLocust 💬 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust thanks for clarification. I was/am still recovering from effects of a flu, after having travelled for half the month for various conferences. In this case, I would question if there is indeed a need to have two separate categories for the same purpose. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky, the intention is to have a category for pages that are eligible for G13, and a category for pages that have been nominated for deletion under G13. I've asked Liz and Explicit to comment since they've been deleting G13 pages straight out of this category, which might give a better indication of how best we could utilise it if it's kept. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have notified Liz and Explicit about this discussion, since they seem to be patrolling it and directly deleting pages from it. Primefac (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. While automatic (i.e. bot) tagging of eligible drafts has been approved in the past, populating this category instead of directly feeding a page into the G13 cat itself means that there is one more set of checks that users can do before a page is formally nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shootings in Virginia[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Shootings in Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Virginia is the only U.S. State with a separate category for non-mass shootings. Of its 5 articles, 3 are in the "Mass shootings in Virginia" category, while the remaining 2 are in the "Crimes in Virginia" category. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but then move Category:Mass shootings in Virginia directly under Category:Crimes in Virginia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Stressed out[edit]

Stressed out → Stressed Out (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect has targeted Psychological stress, Stressed Out (disambiguation) and Stressed Out, the Twenty One Pilots song. Its was pointing to the DAB from 2019 until last month and I changed it back to the DAB today. In terms of the discussions it seems there is a consensus that the Twenty One Pilots song is primary for the title case version per WP:DIFFCAPS, see discussions at Talk:Stressed Out and an older one at Talk:Stressed Out (A Tribe Called Quest song)#Requested move 26 November 2015. In terms of Psychological stress I understand we aren't a dictionary but at the same time it could be argued that its safest to disambiguate the lower case. In terms of the options, option A, target Twenty One Pilots song, option B, target DAB, option C, target Psychological stress. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B either the generic meaning or Twenty One Pilots song could be primary so its probably best to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flamethrower(song)[edit]

Flamethrower(song) → Flamethrower (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unecessary redirect with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation that has only minor page history, no incoming links from mainspace, and where a page with an otherwise identical but correctly spaced disambiguator exists, speedy contested by User:Rosguill for having too many pageviews; while that is not an exception to WP:X3, I have no problem bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DC21:22F4:5B2A:90E7 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was at this title for less than a day in 2015. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Indy[edit]

F-Indy → IndyCar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Formula Indy → IndyCar Series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete; besides being unused (because nobody calls Indy car racing by those terms), they are ambiguous, and could mean IndyCar, IndyCar Series, or American open-wheel car racing. RegalZ8790 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen Euro-press call it Formula Indy, so it is a misnomer. {{R from incorrect name}} Such as [38] -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per European misconceptions on the name -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What is the utility of a redirect that facilitates a misconception? RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  wP:RKEEP IT gets users where they want to go so is a viable {{R from search term}} -- we have these tags, so obviously, they are being used. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get out[edit]

Get out → Get Out (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can see that the redirect target has been changed a couple times recently, so I'm going to bring this to discussion rather than just change it again without consensus. I think this should be retargeted to Get Out, the undisambiguated film article (as was decided with significant support in 2017) and be tagged as {{R from miscapitalization}}. If we accept that Get Out is PTOPIC (which, of course, I support) then it would make more sense that someone typing those precise words, regardless of capitalization, should be directed to that article. It's where I was expecting to be taken just now when I encountered the dab page instead. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS, there are several lower case uses and the film is linked at the top of the DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⚔[edit]

⚔ → Sword (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A better target for this redirect would be Crossed swords since the title of this page matches what the glyph depicts and the glyph is discussed at this page. The current target brings no information about it at all. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Redirecting to a disambiguation page is never a good idea. The proposed change to a disambiguation page will give no information at all, it is in fact a link to nowhere. The Banner talk 11:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom, as it is mentioned at the proposed target but not the current one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Killed in action as stated on the disambiguation page. The Banner talk 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Arusha Rural District[edit]

Template:Arusha Rural District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arusha District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Arusha Rural District with Template:Arusha District.
{{Arusha Rural District}} is fuller. Template:Arusha District should be turned into a disambiguation because {{Arusha Urban District}} exists as well. Aldij (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:Arusha District shouldn't be turned into a disambiguation page and the Rural District main link links to the same article as the main district template. And on top of that, we have Template:Districts of Arusha which features all the same links on the main Arusha navbox, Template:Arusha. This may be a case of merging everything to one template, having sections for all these links, and deleting the rest of the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFL team map 1995[edit]

Template:CFL team map 1995 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't need a template for this, as you can just create the map as required on each page. the template appears to have 0 actual uses. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linguistics barnstar[edit]

Template:Linguistics barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Linguistics Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Linguistics barnstar with Template:Linguistics Barnstar.
They're the same template. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Created by the same editor. Just redirect one to the other (with the lowercase barnstar being the template kept). Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

User:Georgiagayle[edit]

Copy of Buford, Wyoming. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronald mugula[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE, poorly referenced BLP. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe Neilson[edit]

An unreferenced WP:FAKEARTICLE about a possibly living person. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Shane and Friends[edit]

This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards? Nokia621 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn First of all, the original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by Business Insider, The Evening Standard, The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular. USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their "Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments. Nokia621 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers [39] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings, WP:SINGLEVENDOR) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing. Nokia621 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) then why link the Medium source 2) moot per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site. Nokia621 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with. Nokia621 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?". Owen× ☎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies? Nokia621 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent wikilawyering. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base. Nokia621 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estonian numismatists[edit]

This was closed as "merge all" but there was no actual consensus to merge all (as opposed to merging only the ones that still have one member). Discussion with the closer at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working has failed to resolve matters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I would have closed it the same way, to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman villas in Germany[edit]

This was closed as "merge" but there was no actual consensus to merge. Neither side provided any clear guidelines to back up their position, and the numbers were equal. This should have been a "no consensus" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, for this one, the keep !votes referred (implicitly) to the deprecated WP:SMALLCAT guideline. The nom referred to Wikipedia:Categorization by saying it's not useful for navigation, which I felt was reasonable enough. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful for navigation" seems like a wholly subjective term to me, not a basis in which one can declare one side or the other right. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, yes. This matter comes up fairly frequently at CfD; it would be nice to have some community consensus. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be nice to have such community consensus. But until that happens, would you be willing to revert your close and relist the CfD, so we can speedily close this DRV? Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates