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]

Candidates for speedy deletion

Draft:Anti-Trafficking Review

Draft:Arth Shakti Foundation

Draft:Carolina Guerreno

CBS logos

Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation)

Logik 66 The twitch streamer

Viraj Mithani

Van Snyder (DJ)

Yiftach Brigade

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 17	May 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mann Ke Moti[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main Gunehgar Nahi[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehryar Shehzadi[edit]

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this, this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devarishi Dasa Asamoah[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The first source was published by a contributor on a site that doesn't appear reliable. The second and third sources are practically identical, providing nothing about the subject beyond a name drop. This fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO imo. GSS ^💬 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Ghana. GSS ^💬 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoon Mein Pali[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kissey Apna Kahein[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Hamrahi[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Muhallay Ki Haveli[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr-e-Ajnabi[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareek-e-Hayat[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peters (media executive)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Run of the mill coverage of this executive who used to run Euronews, but not much in terms of in-depth of independent from the subject (interviews, press releases) which would indicate this is a notable individual under our guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and France. Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Privateers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [1][2][3][4][5] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Party Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poshtkuh-e Shamil[edit]

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

I originally nominated this for PROD with the following justification, which I largely stand by: None of the cited sources clearly indicate a place by this name in Farsi, although there are partial title matches. There is no corresponding page on fa.wiki. This is likely a GNIS ghost or some other error. Sources all relate to Hormozgan province, but there's no useful mention at that page that could justify a redirect.

Now, since opening a PROD for this page with the above reasoning, a new account has repeatedly attempted to refbomb the page with a mountain poorly formatted citations, most of which have the same aforementioned problem of referring to a Poshtkuh (پشتکوه) but not a Poshtkuh-e Shamil (پشتکوه شمیل). However, I do note that at least one of the new sources does refer to "Poshtkuh, Shamil Region" (پشتکوه بخش شمیل) [6]. The level of coverage is still such that I think we fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NGEO--we have basically no verifiable claims about the region to build an article around, and it is not self-evident that this is a distinct, recognized populated place. "Poshtkuh" essentially means "behind the mountain" in Farsi, and could easily be an informal descriptor rather than an actual defined place. Thus, I think that a redirect to Shamil Rural District and extended-confirmed protection of the page is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha season 2[edit]

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

Tamasha Season 2 hasn't received coverage that should satisfy GNG. The only coverage I found are ROTM - all from same publication - like this, this, and this one. Not enough because Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. and provided coverage is without bylines. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Lourdes Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Private school that does not appear notable due to lack of reliable sources. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MES College[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. The only source is from the college's LinkedIn page, and I found no press coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Goa. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Doesn't warrant its own page since it doesn't meet GNG. Can be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_University#Recognised_institutions Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hannaford[edit]

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

despite being flagged for improvement for nearly a decade now, the article still has major issues. much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO, but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sportspeople. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear-cut case, surprised it survived PROD. PatGallacher (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

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

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.

It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).

The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).

Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)

@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [7], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.

I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.

For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [8] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta. Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them. Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National University station[edit]

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

Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated per WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro. Toadspike (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)

2. This is, in fact, a different station from Vietnam National University station in Hanoi. Toadspike (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is Listed as Generaly Unreliable not Depracated. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment. Toadspike (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 3 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!} 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the station has been built, will soft open in July with full service in Q4 2024. I've added a link to support that. @Crcolas added a number of links to Vietnam news sites before me. With greater than two significant sources, should be an easy pass for GNG. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponized incompetence[edit]

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

No citations to reputable sources in psychiatry or psychology. Entirely based on popular culture and tabloid references, with little-to-no evidence backing them. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting one way or another but I did find a psychology today article that was reviewed by their staff which I'm assuming includes psychologists. https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/basics/weaponized-incompetence 2406:5A00:CC09:4F00:FCC7:FA9E:340B:67DD (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Topics in popular psychology do not need to have peer reviewed sources, but rather merely significant coverage in several different reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a psychologist who has my own Psychology Today blog (easily verified), I can assure you that one isolated blog post talking about it does not in any way establish it as the "concept in popular psychology" that this article claims it to be. In one of my headlines, I used the term "phantom depression" as a play on Phantom Menace from Star Wars Episode I. My use of those words does not in any way make "phantom depression" a "concept in popular psychology." I'll be right back with a breakdown on the rest of those sources. I've been studying them over. Now I need to write it out. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources as currently numbered:

1. HuffPost. That bloggy opinion piece is not news. Its author does not claim to be any kind of psychology expert, nor does she actually say this is part of psychology. She talks about the term's use in TikTok videos. She does refer to weaponized incompetence once as a "pop psychology idea" but in a conversational way that does not suggest invocation of actual psychology.

2. The Wall Street Journal piece is hidden by a pay wall, but the visible part of the article, several checks of it through multiple search engines, and other people's articles about that article do not indicate that it indicated that it is a psychological concept. The more reliable references indicate that it coined the term strategic incompetence. Again that does not make it a psychological term (not even pop psych) or anything more than one person's musing.

3. The Guardian. This is essentially just an opinion piece about the Wall Street Journal article, and it does not call the term psychological.

4. The Bustle. This is about the random people talking on TikTok. They do ask for reaction from one therapist/author with a Master's. The therapist is not really claiming it to be a psychological concept or part of popular psychology but, rather, is sharing thoughts about the term that the article's author has asked her about. Not a terrible source.

5. Cosmopolitan. It's Cosmo. Psychology is mentioned. It pulls its content from the same WSJ article and TikTok videos.

6. Glam. Cosmo is more reliable and valid than Glamour. They interviewed a relationship coach, not a psych pro. They quoted a therapist who had provided a single quote to PopSugar, not even a full sentence. That therapist did not suggest that she was talking about a valid psych concept. She gave a passing thought regarding an idea PopSugar asked about.

7. Fortune. I paid the dollar to read this one. They interviewed an economics professor/book co-author and a CEO. They did not in any way indicated that it is part of psychology/psychiatry, and neither did the article.

8. USA Today. Article does not indicate it comes from psychology.

9. Psychology Today. See above. It's just a blog post. I have written 140 Psych Today blog posts. They give us a lot of freedom in what we say there. One of my pieces was speculation about whether the villain Poison Ivy's superpowers could be pheromone-based.

10. Glamour UK. The writer is blogging some thoughts without sources except for one TikTok link.

11. AskMen. Not a great source. Talks about TikTok, but this time the author did get a thought from one LMFT. The therapist shared thoughts on the implications of weaponized incompetence but without in any way suggesting that it is an accepted concept in the field. The writer is a business consultant.

12. GQ. Blog musings. Someone on TikTok asked a question, so the writer offers first-person thoughts on the topic without connecting it to psychology. The writer is a journalist and poet, not in psychology or any related field.

13. Salon. The author blogs some thoughts. A relationship coach is quoted, but it should be noted that those who call themselves relationship coaches or life coaches almost always do so because they are not therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or anyone with the psych credentials. The article does not mention psychology.

14. New York Times. NYT is a great source. The article does not say it's a psych term.

15. The Good Men Project. This is just a blogger thinking about the topic without sources and without mentioning psych. Also, this is a reprint from somewhere else. The original should have been cited instead, which makes me wonder how carefully this was read by the editor who cited it.

16. Michigan Daily. Nothing new. Talking about the same TikTok ideas covered elsewhere. No psych is mentioned.

17. Digiday. Interesting blog post relating it to diversity issues. Nothing formal. No sources establishing this as anything more than a neologism.

18. Women. Its source is the HuffPost piece (item 1).

19. The Daily Dot. About the YouTube trend.

20. Refinery29. About the YouTube trend.

If editors feel Wikipedia should include an article about the YouTube "trend" of sharing thoughts about this neologism (see WP:NEO), that might be fine. However, this article is about a supposed concept in psychology, but it fails to establish that it is said concept in psychology, not even pop psychology. Almost the entire article falls under the "In popular psychology" heading. Saying something is a concept in psychology when it is not can be a dangerous thing to do. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:NEXIST stresses, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not simply the article's current sourcing. So I logged into the American Psychological Association's PsycINFO database of abstracts from chapters, dissertations, and more than 2,500 journals in the field. As of this writing, not a single abstract in that database mentions weaponized incompetence or strategic incompetence. Neither does the PsycBOOKS database. Neither does the PsycArticles database. Not one. These terms are not part of psychology.

Of course, the article says popular psychology, not psychology, but (1) most people do not understand that distinction, (2) the sources cited in the Wikipedia article do not say the concept is part of popular psychology either, and (3) my credentials include authoring and editing 16 Popular Culture Psychology books. The article may have enough good sources in there to discuss this if framed very differently, but not as part of popular psychology. I'm not sure that one brief spattering of TikTok videos sharing an idea that hearkens back to one older WSJ article really is something that merits its own article at this time. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla's thorough analysis. Sources are either trivial, non-reliable, or both. Treating this as an established concept in pop psychology is basically WP:SYNTH. If someone writes a book on it at some point, maybe we can have an article then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morakot Sriswasdi[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It might be more relevant to create a section for Thai ambassadors in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Thailand)

Individual ambassadors might not merit a stand alone page.

Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Laos, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Montenegro relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. --Soman (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [9], [10], [11], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ([12]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ([13]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ([14]), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar @Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. --Soman (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Its not just mentions, its entire interviews on national newspapers that are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia.Jeanette la Perdida Martin(que?) 21:00 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree with your take. Interviews by him on reliable sources do not count towards WP:GNG because they are not independent of the subject. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - a click here : https://www.google.com/search?q=amilcar+ferreira+economista&rlz=1CAUFPX_enUS1089&oq=amilcar+ferreira&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.5623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 confirms he is notable, while a click on news here shows no links but only because it searches for "Amilcar Ferreira - Wikipedia".Jeanette 20 years inventing nicknames Martin(que?) 22:48 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, interviews are not independent and do not demonstrate notability. BEFORE found name mentions, interviews, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this article. From the page and sources I would say this person should have an article, but maybe there is sense in requiring more sources that are independent as mentioned by the user Timothy. O.maximov (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangmin[edit]

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

Prod challenged so bringing here. Totally unsourced, original research, before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable sources in the Korean language. [15] in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, [16][17] (Parts of e-books on a history website maintained by the Academy of Korean Studies)

, academic paper [18].

I mentioned this in edit comment on the article, but we focus on notability first and foremost, and then look at article quality. And I agree, the article isn't great. This was an entire social class for centuries, and has been written about extensively in Korea. Lmk if you'd like me to dig up more sources. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The sources that I could find are mostly either primary, or school/college databases. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Delhi. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just one of 1093 schools run by by Delhi Directorate of Education. There are no notable achievements of the school or any notable alumni. Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor source and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 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!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 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!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermie and Friends[edit]

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

Granted that I don't know what reference sources would discuss this Christian animated children's show but I didn't find anything in my online search that wasn't either user-generated content, product-focused (promotion) or sites that allowed users to view episodes. I found no secondary sources or SIGCOV. One site called it an "award-winning" show but I never could locate what that award was. Given the detail of content about the characters, I think this article mainly serves as a nostalgia page for IP editors to write about a series they might have watched when they were younger. Dare I say it? I don't think it is notable or encyclopedic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Christianity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I've found one review in the Wichita Falls Times Record News: "DVD hangs on wing, prayer and a caterpillar", which has eight brief paragraphs. I'll see if I can find anything else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Toughpigs, I'm impressed by your diligence. We have so many articles on marginal children's television series. I guess this one did have some coverage, at least in Wichita. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this UT Daily Beacon review is independent, extensive, and as RS as any college student publication would be. In combination with the above, that would be a notability pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note but not contributing to notability, Tim Conway's obituaries do seem to mention this series (he voiced the main character) among his other clearly more well-known roles. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 11 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!} 07:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group SIX[edit]

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

No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [19] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [20] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 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!} 07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 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!} 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro (text editor)[edit]

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

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has decent coverage in Linux Magazine, ItsFoss, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that, rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany or Kate or Code::Blocks. Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 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!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos loyalist rallies[edit]

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

WP:NOT a repository of links. This isn't really an article, it is a statement and some links. I've approached the editor with some help on his talk page. Note there is also a Draft version by the same editor. The editor seems to have a history of just adding lists of links in articles rather than citations or prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having an article of demos that routinely end without much incident is no more notable than having to tally other rallies by groups in other sides of the political spectrum. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly fine stub that helpfully lists sources that can be used for future expansion. The cited sources (including from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post, so not just local coverage) clearly indicate that these demonstrations were considered notable at the time, and notability is not temporary. "Too many links" is not a valid reason for deletion and probably if they weren't there there'd be complaints about lack of references – it's a wonder people still bother writing articles. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't access all the sources in this article, but the ones I can read are about specific rallies rather than the treatment of all these linked rallies as an overarching topic. They seem, at least from the sources I read, to be disparate and not directly related, not "a series" as the article asserts. At least one does not even seem to be about a rally. What connects these various sources is the wider topic of post-People Power Marcos loyalism, which found (and continues to find I suppose) a number of outlets of expression. The hardest expression is covered in Coup attempts against Corazon Aquino, one aspect is covered in Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos. Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality skips straight over this period, although it seems likely very relevant to that article topic. All that is to say that there is a broader topic here for which we don't seem to have a broad topic article, and it is not clear whether this perhaps slightly synthy coverage of the rallies works as an independent subtopic within that. CMD (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of my point, that this is just a collection of links that aren't directly relatable as a coherent topic. Is there an article that can be written on the topic? Maybe, but it would be completely rewritten to provide a notable "overarching topic". For starters, you would need sources talking about the rallies as a whole, not just individual rallies. Leaving as is, it is just a list of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a brief look I couldn't find sources on the rallies as a whole, but teasing out a specific topic among the broader Marcos corpus is not easy so I'm not putting too much stock in that, they may exist somewhere. I will note that it would be a shame to lose the collected sources. Some of them would fit on Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality, filling that odd gap, for the others though I'm not sure if we have something more specific than History of the Philippines (1986–present). CMD (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could always copy the links over to the talk page of the history of the Philippines article, and I would probably make a note in the summary as to the editor's name that provided them for attribution since this may get deleted. I wouldn't say there is enough to merge or draftify but that is how I would save the links if you think they are worth exploring. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case wouldn't it make more sense to upmerge or rename it? Something like Marcos loyalism? – Joe (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was substantial or unique content, then perhaps, but there isn't (the article is one sentence), and there aren't sources to link it together as a single topic to pass GNG. I think you have to start with sources that at least tie the concepts together to have a broad topic that is "notable" first, then fill in the blanks with these kinds of sources that cover the individual events. The individual links might have value somewhere, but it would require WP:OR to stitch them together into this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:46, 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!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [21], [22] and [23]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Lean Keep. Taking a quick look, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage when it comes to the broadcasters for the NBA All-Star Game. BornonJune8 has added also added sources so that it now exceeds 250 references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:REFBOMBING does not help with determining if this meets the WP:NLIST, rather we need to see the broadcasters discussed as a group. That being said, the nom does seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let'srun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? I was defending my decision to nominate this list for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:33, 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!} 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Seja[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:DIRECTOR or even WP:ANYBIO. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that aligns with WP:GNG. It's likely a case of UPE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable producer [24] [25] who has produced more than 100 drama serials. Easily passes producer criteria of wikipidea. Few of his work are listed with reliable source proving his production for that project.

Baddua [26]
Ijazat [27]
Rukhsati [28]
Sukoon [29]
Angna [30]
Bay Dardi [31]
Hum Na Thay Be Mehar [32]
Ghisi Piti Mohabbat [33] [34][35]
Noor ul Ain [36] Libraa2019 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, All these articles you mentioned (except Noor ul Ain) were created by blocked and unblocked UPEs. I doubt they meet the WP:N - But I'll need to examine each and every drama/TV show they've produced to determine if they meet the significance requirement as outlined in WP:PRODUCER. You mentioned they produced 100+ shows, but you only provided around 10. Where are the rest? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Including Noor ul Ain because it was not created by L293D (talk · contribs) as I thought initially. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I conducted a quick Google search to find coverage about these films sand TV dramas you mentioned, but I couldn't find significant / in-depth coverage about them. I just found some ROTM coverage and this indicates that these films/dramas may not be significant work. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:PRODUCER or WP:DIRECTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note: SPI filed—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        And i have provided rationale to prove my point at SPI Libraa2019 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per nominator's request, presenting some of the other projects, Seja produced.

Baby Baji [37]

Rasm E Duniya [38]

Haiwan [39]

Beti [40]

Ghairat [41]

Pehli Si Muhabbat [42]

Koi Chand Rakh [43]

Log Kya Kahenge (2020 TV series) [44]

Hangor S-131 [45]

Fraud (TV series) [46]

Kaisi Teri Khudgarzi [47]

Barfi Laddu [48]

Berukhi

Bhool

Qurban

Kaisa Hai Naseeban

Mere Khudaya

Sannata

Mere Harjai

Dareecha

Note Nominator is unable to understand any rationale and nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Hold on a sec—what I'm seeing is that he's just a producer of some of the shows you mentioned above because he has COO position in a company called iDream Entertainment - the actual production company behind these TV shows. Also, I did a quick Google search, and most of these TV shows aren't noteworthy because they fail GNG on their own. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can confirm from the sources i mentioned above, he is the producer in Idream Entertainment. All the attached sources are claiming that he produced these shows. They did'nt claim that iDream Entertainment produced these shows or that he is the COO. Another thing to note that you said most of the shows aren't noteworthy which is your assumption as majority of his projects received significant coverage including but not limited to Baby Baji, Pehli Si Muhabbat, Ghisi Piti Mohabbat, Noor ul Ain, Rasm E Duniya, Beti Libraa2019 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - And Saqib, as i said in another AFD discussion, you have gone too far in personal disagreements, now you are nominating his projects for deletion [49] [50], adding notability tag to his projects [51] [52] and gaming the system (WP:Gaming) that he is not notable. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per source presented above. At least per WP:BASICOtbest (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, please avoid WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went through a handful or so of the sources presented above and they are all brief mentions or based on what Seja says. Happy to reconsider if WP:THREE are presented (ping me). S0091 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion but did you visit the sources which i attached against each of his productions. All sources confirm his production in these projects and he can easily passes per WP:BASIC as produced more than 100 notable TV series. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For WP:BASIC you need sources with enough depth of coverage about him that one can write a biography. That's not the case here. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 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!} 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Afzal Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its delete or keep. The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, They nominated Abdullah Seja, added notability tag to Qudsia Ali, Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [53], the tag was removed by another senior editor [54] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [55]. These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha, see Talk:Abu Aleeha. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - appears to be WP:NACTOR with [56] and [57]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added few, merely not based on interviews. There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on. I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them. For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam, Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think CNMall41 (talk · contribs) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help. You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 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!} 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple notable roles through which passes WP:NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [58] therefore passes WP:GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence indicating major roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided. You are not ready to check any. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences.
Daily Times [59]

The News International [60]

DAWN [61]

The Express Tribune [62]

Daily Times [63]

The News International [64]

Daily Jang [65]

Eastern Eye [66]

Daily Pakistan [67]

Daily Jang [68]

Daily Times [69]

The Friday Times [70]

Daily Times [71]

Daily Times [72] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show proof that the subject had major roles. None of the sources you've provided confirm this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes?? As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source. If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system, the same you did with Abdullah Seja. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For other editors and record, All the attached sources are claiming he has played significant roles in multiple television serials and he also played a lead role in feature film Aksbandh, [73] Libraa2019 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Mordacci[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of independent coverage available online. The few third-party sources that do cover him directly are not in-depth (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 10 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) 19:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few transactional announcements, but not really enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:08, 11 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!} 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Leaupepe[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. All I found was routine transfer news 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 10 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) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a few bits on this one, such as this and this, which I think is just enough for a weak keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like the first website is some sort of upstart sports blog with a staff of university students (1). Also, the publishers of the second source, the Melbourne Rebels, are directly affiliated with the subject's former team, Melbourne Rising. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 11 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!} 06:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS	1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth	8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 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!} 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata in B minor[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 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!} 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonata in B minor to avoid duplicate list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 12 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!} 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Men's Roller Derby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 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!} 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found barely enough RS for notability, but the sourcing is still admittedly thin. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure the coverage passes WP:AUD here~~. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't sports teams exempt from WP:ORG (and thus exempt from AUD)? The second sentence of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT, which says, in boldface, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that, my mistake, thought Roller Derby was more like WWE than it is. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand'mere Eugene. Thanks for improving the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:21, 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!} 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Ueki[edit]

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

Has been on the list of articles not meeting WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) ~~and no corresponding Japanese article~~ strongly suggest he does not meet WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing WP:NSPORT. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't had a chance to do any sort of research so not ready to give an opinion yet. However, I am leaning keep simply on the basis that there's little reason to believe that OP did a WP:BEFORE search that included Japanese-language sources. If he had, he would have quickly run across the corresponding Japanese-language article which the nomination asserts does not exist. DCsansei (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! WP:TROUT moment for me here. I copied the name listed in the article, which (had a space) at the time. The article did not have a space, so I missed it and assumed there wasn't an article. I've struck that from the nom. Looking at that article, there's only one source and its WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think the nom is still good, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I haven't been able to turn up much of anything here. It's odd given what's seemingly verifiable about his importance within Karate as head of Japan Karate Association but not much in the way of coverage of any of that. I don't want to !vote delete since I think the odds that there are sources offline in Japanese are very high but can't demonstrate that at this point. DCsansei (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Karate Association which he is chief instructor of [74]. There likely is enough to write a biography of Ueki but I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives (which are largely not digitized). Fwiw, likely that this book published by Kodansha by one of his contemporaries in JKA covers him. There is this coverage of his visit to New Zealand. Would not be opposed to keeping and happy to revisit if more is found. DCsansei (talk) 11:35, 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!} 21:17, 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!} 06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Adams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Can’t see them passing any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. ~~Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe.~~ TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [75] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/gsj84t/why_is_there_so_little_information_on_rolex/ highlights the issue here. I think he's notable, there's just deliberately a lack of information on him. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia:Notable is mostly about having material to build an article from. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend: The Three Bachelors[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits from GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Redirect to Dear Friend (TV series) as per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:

The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and
Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine.

Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California, and Hawaii. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations[edit]

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yatai City[edit]

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

Few reliable sources on the city are available, and those that are cover essentially the same information as is present in this section of She Zhijiang's page. Ordinarily I would say that the information should be merged, but none of the unique info on the page is referenced. Zygmeyer (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Myanmar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System[edit]

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

Obscure Bulletin board system, ~~which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell~~. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra[edit]

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

Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".

Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy link to previous merge discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to Bharat Jodo Yatra. I do not see why timeline needs to have a separate page when timeline segment is included in Bharat_Jodo_Yatra#Timeline. This page is WP:CFORK. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni[edit]

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.

And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?

I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.

Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 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!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Thorn[edit]

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

~~Possible WP:AUTOBIO of a non-notable writer. (The photo was uploaded by the same user as "own work" and the editor's user page redirects to this article.)~~ Of sources in the article, only this Calgary Herald piece qualifies toward WP:GNG. Sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 are links to the author's own writing. Sources 2 and 6 are to the school paper of the subject's alma mater and thus disqualified toward notability per WP:RSSM. Sources 10-12 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus disqualified toward notability as primary sources. There is no evidence that he would qualify under any criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I was new to making Wikipedia pages when I made this page, and I didn't understand the sandbox feature so I apologize about the redirect to my own page... I don't think that reflects on the relevancy of the subject, and I would be more than happy to fix that if it's possible. I'm just an unaffiliated fan of Mike Thorn's work, and I thought that fans were usually the genesis for page creation. I would hate for this to negatively impact him.

As for the photo, that might have been an issue on my part as well. I found it in this article from the Calgary Guardian: https://calgaryguardian.com/mike-thorn/.

Regarding sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9: I'm presently working to improve them. Regarding 9, I found it on JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/322833), and I'll continue working on the others! Could you please clarify what you mean by the "author's own writing"? They're not coming from his own website domain, so I thought they'd be fine... What other kinds of content creation exist for authors, given that they are authors?

Thanks! Mirbb1990 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirbb1990 Thanks for responding. Please familiarize yourself with the general notability guideline: we need multiple examples of significant coverage (not trivial, passing mentions or mentions of the subject in the context of something else larger) in sources that are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. That means that the author's own writing, whether on his own website or in other sources, cannot establish notability; it's not independent. The fact that the author was published in an anthology does not make it notable unless there are secondary sources explaining why that anthology and its contributors are notable. Interviews are likewise disqualified for notability, since they are the subject talking about himself. And Wikipedia consensus is that student media is insufficiently independent to be used for notability. The only source you identified that would pass the test of significant coverage, secondary, independent, and reliable is the Calgary Herald piece, and we would need multiple examples of those kinds of pieces. I wasn't able to find them in my searching. Now, some of the sources you identified can stay in the article and be used as sources for facts, but only the Herald piece qualifies to establish Thorn's notability and thus his eligibility for an article at all. (As for the photo, it was already deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Please do not upload any photos there as your "own work" if they're not your own work.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirbb1990 I should add, since I see you are adding links to book reviews, that the reviews are not about the author but about the book, and thus will not meet the WP:SIGCOV test for the author himself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for the input! I've carefully reviewed the criteria and added links to other noteworthy figures (such as the creator of the Final Destination film franchise), academic sources (including jstor), and articles about the author himself from sources such as IMDb (the Internet Movie Database). I've reviewed an analogous page for another author with fewer sources than Mike Thorn's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._P._Miskowski (who has blurbed Mike Thorn's work). Could you please explain why this page meets the criteria and Mike Thorn doesn't? Mirbb1990 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article on a likely unnotable battle.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article literally has no sources cited. Based Kashmiri (talk)
Keep. I remembered I voted on this page when it was first nominated but all the sources were removed without concensus that I added back. Vote is still keep noting two reliable sources by historians Bansal and Sandhu. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zesławicki Lagoon[edit]

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

A small artificial reservoir in suburban Krakow; fails WP:GNG. Both sources in the article are WP:USERGENERATED; a BEFORE search does not unearth any additional qualifying sources. Under WP:NGEO, an artificial infrastructure entity qualifies for notability under GNG and otherwise redirects to the notable feature that prompted its creation. In this case, the river the the lagoon impounds is not notable and thus, without qualifying sources, neither its the lagoon itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't translated these but a search for "Zalew Zesławicki" brings up [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]. I'm not sure if all of these pass GNG, for instance the last one is just a single sentence, but there's at least sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its likely notable as a geographic feature. There will be the countries water body reference i.e. a Bathymetrical register that describes width/height/depth and 100 other properties. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not listed in the official Polish directory of bodies of water: WYKAZ NAZW WÓD STOJĄCYCH (LIST OF NAMES OF STANDING WATERS). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue MC[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn, Oregon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [82], which might be notable, but nothing about a "community" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Life[edit]

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

Radio station fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No effort in article to demonstrate notability. All sources in article are to self-published/primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources, just a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Seivo[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Finland. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 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!} 02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the cited sources are WP:RAJ & outdated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS). Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content.. All other are poor to self published to unreliable WP:RAJ sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 17 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, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: All the sources from the page were removed by an editor while the AFD nom was in progress. It is an attempt to sabotage other's decision for voting.

Magdalena Hinterdobler[edit]

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

This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.

Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.

As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Theatre, and Germany. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG "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, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger, in Online Merker, includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length:
- "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!)—we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio
- noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain)—we don't mention this role
- a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance)—we don't mention this role either.

There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC. Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season (Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
  - @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
    
    Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
    
    "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season, during which she sang Grete in a new production of Zemlinsky’s Der Traumgörge / George the Dreamer and Elisabeth in Don Carlo, which is followed by Chrysothemis in the first revival of last season's new Elektra. Other highlights in 2022/23 included Agathe in Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis (role debut) in Elektra at Tirol’s Landestheater in Innsbruck. She trained at the University for Music and Theatre in Munich and Bavaria’s August Everding Theatre Academy with Andreas Schmidt, and in Helmut Deutsch’s Lieder classes. She was a member of the Ensemble at Oper Leipzig from 2014 - 2022, where her many roles included Rusalka, Micaëla in Carmen and Marie in The Bartered Bride. Word of her interpretation of Anna in the world premiere of Gerd Kühr’s Paradiese spread far and wide. While working in Leipzig with the Gewandhaus Orchester she also sang many Mozart and Italian roles, including Liù in Puccini’s Turandot and, most recently, Mimì in La Bohème. Her concert repertoire ranges from the baroque to contemporary music. She has appeared with many well known conductors and orchestras including Stuttgart’s Bach Collegium, the Munich Radio Orchestra, the Hamburg and Bamberg symphony orchestras, Dresden Philharmonic and the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchester. She also enjoys singing Lieder with the pianist Gerold Huber. A CD of early Wagner Lieder was released by CPO in 2013, the year she appeared with the Munich Radio Orchestra for the first time as Dorella in Wagner’s Das Liebesverbot / The Ban on Love, which was followed by roles in Wagner operas in Leipzig including Ortlinde and Gutrune in the Ring des Nibelungen under GMD Ulf Schirmer. She continues her journey into young dramatic roles this season with Agathe in Weber’s Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis in Elektra at the Landestheater in Tirol."
    
    Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Oladeji Akande[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abysmal sourcing and hagiographic. Does nothing to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Cellular[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different? Demondude182 (talk) 07:52, 18 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 Withdrawn‎

Marmara Park[edit]

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

Shopping mall without sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP
- [83]
- [84]
- [85]
- [86]
- [87]
- [88]
QalasQalas (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these. Withdrawn Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:56, 18 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.

Mountain House Community station[edit]

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

This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adeyemi[edit]

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

An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability-qualifying coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Natesan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:18, 18 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) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only possibility of a pass is WP:Prof#C1, but GS cites of less than 900 in this very highly cited field are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Registrar is generally a more senior post at Indian universities compared to the west, basically the chief administrative officer reporting directly to the president/vice chancellor, so it's possible that being a registrar might lead to more coverage. That said, I don't see sufficient sourcing for GNG and I don't see him clearly passing any of the NACADEMIC criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Singapore, Tamil Nadu, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:The Supremes - Someday We'll Be Together (Italy).png[edit]

The other image File:1969 - Someday We'll Be Together.png was uploaded first and should be used instead for now. Per WP:NFCC#3a, using more than one cover art of same recording discouraged. George Ho (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Unalaska, Alaska.png[edit]

It is difficult to reach the minimum threshold for copyright protection if it only consists of simple circular geometric shapes and text. The fair use label should be replaced by {{PD-textlogo}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unalaska, Alaska logo.png[edit]

Simple text arrangement alone is unlikely to meet the minimum threshold for copyright protection, and the fair use label should be replaced with {{PD-textlogo}}. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg[edit]

I requested its undeletion, since Kosovo now has liberal Freedom of Panorama, thinking that it may show the Bill Clinton statue or one of the buildings along the road. My assumption went wrong (mostly due to deleted files not visible to me as a non-admin). The main object here is a billboard, and Kosovar FoP does not cover works that are typically mean for temporary exhibition, inclusive of most billboards. If the underlying image of Bill Clinton is from a freely-licensed US government source, then it can be kept and transferred to Commons under a suitable PD-USGov tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: The image I nominated dates to ca. 2010. A Commons file that incidentally includes the billboard is c:File:American flag on Bill Clinton Boulevard in Prishtinë.jpg (dates to 2018) which shows a very different billboard: a proof that Bill Clinton billboard here is not meant to be permanent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logan-Cache Airport overview, Oct 2016.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC1, airport still exists. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gift IFSC.jpg[edit]

Seems to be an artist rendition of the place. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Lists of films by date[edit]

Propose merging Category:Lists of films by date to Category:Lists of films

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that it is redundant, it helps keep the parent category less crowded.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deuteronomistic history[edit]

Propose merging Category:Deuteronomistic history to Category:Nevi'im

Nominator's rationale: The category explanation is not universally accepted, see the last paragraph of the section Deuteronomistic history. If not merged, rename to Category:Former Prophets as a more useful title – see the section Former Prophets in the article Nevi'im. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Keeping it as Category:Former Prophets isn't very necessary since Category:Nevi'im is not overpopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:India MPs 2019–present[edit]

Propose renaming Category:India MPs 2019–present to Category:India MPs 2019–2024

Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian musicians by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian musicians by ethnic or national origin to Category:Canadian musicians by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent categories Category:Musicians by ethnicity and Category:Canadian people by ethnicity. With the exception of the Asian subcategory this is about people's own ethnicity, not about their ancestors' nationality. The Asian subcategory may be moved directly under Category:Canadian musicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executed French people[edit]

Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Alsace to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Aquitaine‎ to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Auvergne‎ to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Burgundy to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Champagne-Ardenne to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Franche-Comté to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Languedoc-Roussillon to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Limousin to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Lorraine to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Midi-Pyrénées to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Nord-Pas-de-Calais to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Picardy to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Poitou-Charentes to Category:Executed French people
Propose manually merging Category:Executed people from Rhône-Alpes to Category:Executed French people

Nominator's rationale: merge, primarily because this is diffusion by defunct administrative divisions (defunct since 2015), and secondarily because diffusion by administrative division leads to a trivial intersection. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drakengard[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Drakengard to Category:Drakengard and Category:Nier

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be enough articles for a split, with 11 going to Nier and 7 going to Drakengard. Bringing to CFD as I am uncertain in this split, and with Nier not having a series article yet. Category:Nier would also likely be a subcategory of Category:Drakengard. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Drakengard still concerns both series and is solely titled "Drakengard". If it is split off into a Nier series article I'd have no qualms with this, but it's putting the cart before the horse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a series article needs to be created before a category is created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:29, 12 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) 01:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Zxcvbnm. As is, the Drakengard article covers both the Drakengard and Nier as part of the same series, and makes no implication that they should be separate. I am sure there is enough coverage that one could make a separate Nier article, but that none exists at this point suggests to me that it isn't necessary, or that it is better to keep them together. Regardless of the reason, the categories should follow suit. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Dark (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Dark (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daley (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Daley (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooke (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Cooke (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Curtis (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copden (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Copden (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonniface (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Bonniface (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blair (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Blair (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Broughton (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Cockerill (MCC cricketer)[edit]

J. Cockerill (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bushby (MCC cricketer)[edit]

J. Bushby (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Godfrey (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Jackson (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jones (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Jones (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lewis (MCC cricketer)[edit]

J. Lewis (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Laurent (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markham (MCC cricketer, 1791)[edit]

Markham (MCC cricketer, 1791) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maddon (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Maddon (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Macnamara (MCC cricketer)[edit]

J. Macnamara (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newland (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Newland (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Need (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. Onslow (MCC cricketer)[edit]

C. Onslow (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Short (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Warren (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wareford (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Wareford (MCC cricketer) → Marylebone Cricket Club (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects were articles created in 2017 by (blocked user) BlackJack, and PRODed by @Blue Square Thing: in 2019, but redirected by Andrew Davidson. The names of the subjects of the redirects do not appear in the target article, and are never likely to, and do not appear in List of Marylebone Cricket Club players (1787–1826) because that list is for first-class players, which these apparently weren't. It's confusing to have a redirect to a target with zero substantive information about the subject so I recommend delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"[edit]

"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?" → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Helen Lovejoy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A variant of the title without quotes, What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children !?, redirects to Think of the children (which prominently mentions Helen Lovejoy). Additionally, I don't think redirects surrounded by quotes often exist here. Xeroctic (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another variant, with minor typographical differences, "What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children?!" (notice the reversed interrobang in the last sentence) redirects to Think of the children as well. Xeroctic (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valéncia[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of Agpshi, who nominated this redirect via PROD with the following rationale: The name with an acute accent is not used either in academic or official sources and, in spite of some recent attempts at making it official (stemming from one of the parties currently governing the city, Vox), it has never been so and it is unlikely that they will succeed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~First of all, why was the redirect target changed? As far as I know that shouldn't happen until the discussion is closed, should it?~~ Ok I see this is standard for rfd.

Second, the question here isn't whether Valéncia is some kind of official name. It's a name that is in use, and even if you consider it to be a misspelling, some people are likely to type it in when looking for Valencia. So it needs to be a redirect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with politics? As far as I'm aware the new local government wants to change it to Valencia/Valéncia as these are the official names in both Spanish and Valencian. It didn't "stem" from Vox but actually from the own Valencia's major, Maria José Catalá, from the People's Party of the Valencian Community. Here you have a source from a regional Valencian centre-left newspaper (as opposed to the local and regional centre-right / right government) so you can see it's even mentioned there: https://www.levante-emv.com/valencia/2023/09/21/catala-he-acuerdo-acento-cerrado-92324310.html

"Valéncia" itself is an historical name. It's also mentioned on LOTS of Valencian articles as well as books written in Valencia. Here you have a prime proof of this, coming from a Valencian Book Editorial (L'Oronella) = https://www.oronella.com/botiga/histories-de-valencia/

I have found this 1996 source from the University of La Rioja based on 1850-1930 information, that is already mentioning this name: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6888722

Same mentioned in the University of Valencia Scientifical Production website = https://producciocientifica.uv.es/documentos/6409378dc654e74950596fde

The official Spanish Government Judiciary and Justice Courts website (MUGEJU) directly writes it as Valéncia/Valencia, and this is an official government site, ruled by Partido Socialista Obrero Español which is the opposing party to both regional ruling PP and even more Vox. Source: https://www.mugeju.es/que-es-mugeju/nuestras-oficinas/delegaciones-provinciales/valenciavalencia

Without mentioning tons of many more reliable sources, historical sources... And without mentioning that all Valencian regionalism parties and associations always write Valéncia, as it's also written in the Norms of El Puig standarized Valencian, which is part of the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture, the oldest Valencian language institution (much older than the actual Academia Valenciana de la Llengua which was created in 1998 and RACV in 1915) so the page Valéncia should include the redirect to the page of Valencia.

And not only that, but also written text that Valéncia is a correct form of spelling Valencia in Valencian. As both Valéncia and València are accepted. Even an inform from the actual AVL (the organisation that regulated the Valencian language) from 2007 said that the proper Valencian name of Valencia is Valéncia: https://www.esdiario.com/valencia/138023357/avl-defendio-acento-cerrado-valencia.html

I am Galician and I have been living in Valencia for a good amount of years. I'm neutral over this, but I do actually know quite a lot about the local and regional history. There is no benefit from trying to hide out what a lot of people think and what also is backed up by many RSs. I have deleted myself the word "Valéncia" from the lead of the page Valencia and I wrote by myself that's officially called València (check my history) but still, we can't delete the will of many people, especially when it's properly sourced even with academical sources.

I hope you will take a proper look at this as I've spent 30 minutes writing this. Thanks. LucenseLugo (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare’s problems[edit]

Medicare’s problems → Medicare (United States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect was an article for less than an hour. While the Medicare (United States) article does mention "Medicare's problems" relating to fiscal policy, they are not the same "problems" ("coverage limitations") mentioned in the WP:BLARed article. Additionally, "Medicare" may also refer to the Canadian and Australian systems, each of which surely has its own problems. I think this is a figurative WP:XY case, and this redirect should be deleted; there are just too many things its title could mean. (Note: the apostrophe is a curly one, not the straight one ordinarily used on Wikipedia.) PleaseStand (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya[edit]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya → Bharatiya Janata Party, Meghalaya (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely misspelling of Meghalaya. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexual[edit]

Gastrosexual → Metrosexual (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gastrosexuality → Metrosexual (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned. Retarget to wikt:gastrosexual if there's no mention anywhere else. --MikutoH ^talk! 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexisexual[edit]

Flexisexual → Metrosexual#Other terms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Flexisexuality → Metrosexual#Other terms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to wikt:flexisexual or sexual fluidity. This section doesn't exist or was changed nor is it mentioned there (anymore). --MikutoH ^talk! 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Rosenfeld(rugby league player)[edit]

Albert Rosenfeld(rugby league player) → Albert Rosenfeld (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Apparently, this redirect has too significant of an edit history to be speedily deleted for WP:X3. However, the page history doesn't look that substantive and it's just someone trying to make a page for a topic that already had a page. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Parser function[edit]

Wikipedia:Parser function → Help:Magic words#Parser functions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:Parser Functions → mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Both of these redirects should probably target the same page. I'm neutral on which option to pick. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget the latter to Help:Magic words#Parser functions. Its title does not unambiguously refer to either target, whether the list of parser functions available here (both words are capitalized) or those provided by the ParserFunctions MediaWiki extension (there is a space between the words). The first target is nevertheless better, because it provides useful information regarding this particular site that the reader may be looking for, as well as a link to the same MediaWiki.org page in the section hatnote (no extra click versus a soft redirect). PleaseStand (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American actress[edit]

American actress → Actor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems oddly and overly specific. I feel like we wouldn't want to make a habit of having nationality-plus-profession redirects to articles on professions that do not have an affinity for nationalities (which most do not). I note, by the way, that American actor redirects to Lists of American actors. BD2412 T 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors. Much more useful to readers than the current target. Thefficacy (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors per User:Thefficacy --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Lists of American actors. I was going to suggest List of American film actresses as an alternative, but List of American television actresses also exists, would be a potentially valid target, and both of those are located at Lists of American actors, so... that's where this should point. Alternatively, we could make a mini-dab that only contains those two links (with the potential to create a List of American broadway actresses and other such ilk?). Fieari (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on creating a mini-dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors to match American actor. No real opposition to making a mini-dab, but I'm not particularly swayed by the idea, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lists of American actors per above. I don't think a mini-dab is needed since the proposed retarget is itself a DAB page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:Monclova Radio/doc[edit]

Template:Monclova Radio/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2015 Mount Union Purple Raiders football navbox[edit]

Template:2015 Mount Union Purple Raiders football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and three total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bluffton Beavers men's basketball coach navbox[edit]

Template:Bluffton Beavers men's basketball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lindsey Wilson Blue Raiders football coach navbox[edit]

Template:Lindsey Wilson Blue Raiders football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

Paulin Basinga[edit]

I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided legitimate points to clarify the raised issues to keep the page, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". None of the votes for "delete" replied to the comments. I recommend this AFD be reopened. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse as a bad-faith appeal. The appellant says, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". That is an outright lie. Even going by nose count alone, there are two Keeps and four Deletes. We could go into the weakness of those two Keep arguments, but I don't think DRV should entertain dishonest appeals even if they have merit, which this one doesn't. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 18 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