Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24

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

The result was keep‎. Arguments for keeping or merging are stronger than those for deletion. A discussion about merging with History of human migration or another target can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Might need some improvement but i think that it could be fixable and should be kept Onlygoodvibez (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bahria Town#Bahria Town Nawabshah. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - the nominator nominated 7 articles for deletion within the scope of 2 minutes, with identical deletion rationales. I strongly doubt any serious WP:BEFORE was performed here. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soman, So, basically, just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. Why don't you come with some coverage that meets the GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: According to my check, I looked for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to establish notability, but I found this and not much more detailed coverage. These articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject and can’t establish notability. The subject fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect is this a city, a neighborhood, or an apartment building? Is it under construction or complete? None of the references answer these questions, or give any substantial independent coverage. Bahria Town#Bahria Town Nawabshah is an acceptable redirect target in lieu of deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can't find any passable source for WP:ANYBIO. Subject also doesn't pass WP:NPROF inherently. It's also lacking in terms of WP:GNG. Also, can't find good figures in directories like Google Scholar. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 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!} 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Google Scholar citation counts are not promising for WP:PROF [3]. Maybe there are GNG-worthy sources hidden from me by the language barrier but we can't keep an article unless that sort of thing is actually demonstrated, not merely hoped-for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A text haphazardly put together (e.g. "a gameologist") by a semi-kamikaze account about a non-notable subject. An associate professor of undisputed-here integrity but, nevertheless, non-article worthy. Wilipedia is not a collection of randomly gathered information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Lack of quality independent WP:SIGCOV, some cited awards don't seem to check out. Previously PRODded, no indication that the subject is notable or outstanding in their field. Content is WP:NOTRESUME. Likely WP:COI, possibly undisclosed WP:PAID, the creator appears to work only on topic closely related to the commercial entity that the subject has an interest in. Melmann 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: First see User:JNY D/sandbox/Nick Winton, submitted for review and an attempt to game the system. Second, fails WP:BIO. Are the awards even significant? WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT applies. WP:ROTM architect doing his hob 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That user subpage is now redirected to the article we are discussing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a paid contribution. Please see the user talk page of the creating editor, where they have disclosed the details, albeit imperfectly 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further to above, the paid disclosure only happened after this nomination and more importantly, after the WP:PAID edits were made. Melmann 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and Timtrent, company has won a few awards and some coverage in RS, but not Winton on his own. Wikishovel (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A rather long list of awards, but I'm not seeing much notability. I can't find any references about this architect, this seems like an exaggerated PROMO, almost to the point of absurdity (I stopped counting at 30 awards)... This much "notability" and no mentions in any RS, something doesn't add up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this text of an extreme promotional, if not vanity, nature, about a subject that lacks Wikinotablity. The shining lights of the extensive list of awards could cause temporary eye blindness and perhaps also mind numbing but let's collect our bearings: The awards are almost all bestowed upon firms with or to which our subject is related. E.g. this "Architect (Medium Firm)" award by The Architect's Newspaper goes to AW-ARCH; we learn that the firm has been cited in the 2022 Honor Awards for Design Excellence of the Boston Society of Architects, but, as shown here, the awards are still to be determined; the firm has been ostensibly feted by the same outfit, yet here we learn that none such award was not even handed over; and so on. Determined: Yes. Notable: No. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of sources; arguments from the old AfD no longer hold up. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album. Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review. That's not gonna do it. So, can we merge to Volume 1? No article. That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2. I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright. Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability. Well, let's just merge it to the record label, then. Guess not that, either. Lubal (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, as subject crashingly fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No need to leave this open for three more days. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Babangida (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've been unable to find if this Nigerian footballer who recently died in a car crash passes WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He won the 1993 FIFA U-17 World Championship. Don't delete the article. 186.176.235.73 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has no relevance to SPORTCRIT or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• An ATD is to merge/redirect to Tijani Babangida where he is currently mentioned, not least since Tijani was in the same car crash. Another alternative to deletion would of course be to find sigcov in the Netherlands. Geschichte (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He play at the Eredivisie and won the Nigerian Premier League in 1992. 201.206.42.68 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there's enough coverage of his death, including pieces like this, which show notability. He had 50+ games in the Dutch professional leagues, the issue is searching is skewed to just reports of his death. GiantSnowman 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Player with sources and pro career including 50+ appearances in fully pro Dutch league and definitly has more offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Won the 1992 NPL. Sources about this entity are PROBABLY offline plus the sources presented by GiantSnowman. Best, Reading Beans 13:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Easy keep here. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't about this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability. Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below Zero (1930 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covered in many books, including [4], [5], and [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Donald23's sources. I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also. Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards. Lubal (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Coverage mentioned by Donaldd23 + some I added to the page (see for yourself) + more existing.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Book of Ether. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability doubtful. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, this was PRODded in 2008 and then not sent here for some reason. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:28, 14 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 11:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that comment mean I’m supposed to read the relevant guidelines and then summon a bunch of people here?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Not at all. The patrolling admin extended this AfD discussion for another week due to lack of participation, and this article is not eligible for a soft delete. GrabUp - Talk 08:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Book of Ether: It would be better to redirect this article to Book of Ether. The subject is not eligible for a standalone article due to the lack of coverage. GrabUp - Talk 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Liga 1 U-16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Liga 1 U-14. Quoting from there: "Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV". Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – And delete for 2018 Liga 1 U-16, 2019 Liga 1 U-20, 2019 Liga 1 U-18, 2019 Liga 1 U-16, 2022 Liga 1 U-18. All fail flagrantly in WP:GNG, as they are editions of a youth competition with no relevance. Svartner (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS, we should avoid low level youth football. Govvy (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG because of a lack of significant, independent coverage from RS. Instagram posts don't cut it for notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Obviously fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. Claims 10 communities in their own official website. The French version was deleted by consensus. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find independent sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fontys Academy of Journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There has not been a source added to this article since it was created in 2006. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Netherlands. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a justified spinoff. No valid reason to delete was brought forward so tempting to just procedural keep. Merge, however, is a correcter resolution. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above. Appears to fail GNG, and therefore WP:NORG. This, however, is based on an English language source, and better sources proving notability may exist in Dutch. Bgv. (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cricket is a negligible sport in Norway and is only practiced in select diaspora communities. That explains why there is not a single - zero - hits in any Norwegian media for Pratik Agnihotri. Google yields LinkedIn and some stat sites. I will defer if there is WP:SIGCOV in other languages. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:GNG, however there is a clear suitable redirect per WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers. I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG and he's mentioned at the target article. Suonii180 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Amateur Press Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is a major lack of sources for verification. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom, published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: "Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy". Toughpigs (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: This is an institution of many decades' duration. AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations. (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of airports in Israel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly cited list that has little or no encyclopedic value. There is one main airport in Israel, one that's mostly domestic (Eilat-Ramon), and one unscheduled (Haifa) with no data present. The comparison of these three airports is mostly useless, as it compares very different things. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge These are part of a fixed busiest airports in X structure, so the question is whether to keep on that or to merge into List of airports in Israel, which I think makes sense. But we shouldn't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  there are just four numbers in the entire list, two of them duplicated (numbers for Ben Gurion airport are somehow identical in 2020 and 2017), and another one unsourced (Haifa 2017). There is not much to lose, but I agree that merge makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of airports in Israel leaving redir. There simply isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Zero^talk 01:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of airports in Israel. After expanding, there are more data and sources now. The 2020 Eilat Ramon data point I still could not verify and seems large. Flagged as such. Others I have added and/or corrected. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  wikidata query gives the same number, don't know how reliable it is. Artem.G (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking this up, Artem.G! It could be full circle. Still unsure about this one data point. gidonb (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of airports in Israel. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just a collection of passenger data for a few random years. It seems like the idea is to gather statistics for as many years as possible, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to store all those data. Mentioning the latest figures in List of airports in Israel is sufficient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the busiest airports in Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Airports in Israel. Data from here can be plced in that article if needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly sourced list about poorly defined, subjective topic. We need very specific criteria for "busiest" here. Merge or redirect would work, but either way, get rid of this article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of airports in Israel. It's not notable for a separate article and not all of the information is sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anotopterus sp. (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This isn't a real fish.

The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:

...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.

Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of political self-immolations#2020s. This incident is already mentioned at the target article but this is a Merge in case any additional information is deemed relevant. It then can be Redirected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, fails NOTNEWS and no content is suitable to merge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Beach, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since nobody has found a reliable source in over 10 years, there likely won't be any more sources. I couldn't find any sources either. EternalNub (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EternalNub (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources Delete Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Needs adoption, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines outlined in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It was accepted through AfC by an inexperienced user. The reference to The New York Times is merely a passing mention and is behind a paywall. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Mexico. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I have added in citations and removed statements where I could not find reliable sources. I think the best coverage of her work is here.^[1][2][3] As noted above, the New York Times article also includes a few sentences on her performance in New York; I think that this is an acceptable citation even if it is behind a paywall or available at ProQuest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My mention of the paywall was merely for informational purposes and not to express any opposition to the source. Whether behind a paywall or freely accessible, a good reference is always valuable. Hitro talk 11:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The NY Times is a trivial mention; all I find are streaming sites and record label profiles. Nothing to satisfy musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of failing general and specific criteria of notability, a fact unshaken by the abundance of what the main contributor wants to pass as sources, which are, actually, trivial listings, passing references, and name-drops; nothing affirming independent notability. And advertorials such as the gem in NY Latin Culture: "As you can see from the picture, Zaira puts a lot of energy into her career and plays with a wide open heart," etc. (The NYT article is explicitly dedicated to "guitarist Eliot Fisk".) Our subject is a classical guitarist like millions of others. And it truly does not help that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:

  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html

  Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not likely to do so in the future (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.

  I would strongly advise if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. While closely following such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – Reviewed sources and feedback from discussion. It appears general consensus is Fox News and Gillette News Record pieces are borderline, but technically meet WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. I concur Daily Signal fails WP:ORGIND. Would like to see additional sources but believe enough to scrape by. Tremendous amount of attention provided to the org even if not necessarily primary WP source material is what I believe puts it over top. In just past 24 hours the org has been referenced by over dozen plus members of congress (press releases, socials, etc.) – clearly a very notable org. If this was an old/inactive org that's one thing, but WP has been more lenient to nonprofits. SamwiseTarly (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closer SamwiseTarly has acknowledged that they are associated with the subject of this article; as such they have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. I have given them a link to the appropriate guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - Ok, well thanks for pointing out that social media stuff. Did more research as I just could not understand why/how the ILA could have this level of influence and following among so many members of congress and not also have a whole ton of other articles in its operation. Well, it turns out ILA is the affiliate of the Conservative Partnership Institute (a policy and research arm). That is why most of the press on ILA is primarily targeted to the studies and the findings. Anyhow, now have a number of other major sources like New York Times and Guardian to cite which should hopefully now finally solve any of the concerns folks have previously had. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/politics/trump-conservative-partnership-institute.html Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... The NYT article does not even mention ILA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Politicalorganizationjunkie - I've struck through your bolded 'keep' above - you have already cast a !vote, you can't cast another one. You are permitted to make general comments, but no more bolded 'keeps' please. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no such thing as a technical pass of ORGIND. If that isn't sufficiently clear, then an AfC review is required. Delete, and strongly advise against recreation without review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as does not seem notable as a sportsperson. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. We tend not to keep NZ players who have not played at top level Super Rugby. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moved unilaterally to mainspace after prior draftification. I see poor referencing, churnalism, and lists of "stuff" albeit as prose. WP:BIO insists on references for facts subject to challenge, and there is a shortfall, so I see a WP:BIO failure. I also see WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM "cross-platform media executive, filmmaker, print and broadcast journalist, and environmentalist." doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO. The sourcing used is either primary or passing mentions. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").

• I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html (walled).
• https://www.axios.com/2021/07/10/dc-journalists-launch-media-company is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/grid-news-the-messenger-startup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, zero discussion of Bauman.
• https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tech-exec-invests-in-digital-news-startup-launched-by-veteran-journalists.html is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman; everything seemingly about him is actually claims about the startup attributed to Bauman.
• https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/DIGIDAY-MEDIA-AWARDS_Winners-Guide-2023_062923-2.pdf is a non-sequitur.
• I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/media/laura-mcgann-has-reimagined-reporting-using-an-intersectional-structurally-focused-approach/ (walled). Given the article is about someone else, I can't imagine this is too useful for an article on Bauman.
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181001-is-this-the-last-chance-to-see-the-titanic is useless for notability (too sparse, possibly wrong subject). Shit He Says, no actual discussion of Bauman. I should note that my own search for sources (string: "Mark Bauman") returned primarily non-responsive content, so I would be very concerned about conflating multiple Mark Baumans.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20190519214223/https://www.virtualwonders.com/ is useless for notability (website homepage).
• https://thinkwellgroup.com/blog/2020/08/21/exploring-the-details-with-virtual-wonders/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
• https://wyse.gmu.edu/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I note this bio omits anything involving GRID or any media startups; one would think, given their journalism pedigree is mentioned, that these would be brought up.
• https://thepearsoninstitute.org/speaker/mark-bauman is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The image on this page looks like a completely different guy from the WYSE image, disregarding the glasses.
• https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ng-live-engineering-exploration-technology/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-17-ca-cinefile17_-story.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Shit He Says, no discussion of Bauman.
• https://www.documentary.org/column/festival-focus-national-geographic-all-roads-film-festival is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
• We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.media.mit.edu/events/media-lab-conversations-series-mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Event programme.
• https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/about/our-people2/board-of-directors/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He's on the BoD for the Darwin Foundation.
• https://www.asoc.org/about/our-team/#board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, BoD.
• https://conservefish.org/news/marine-fish-conservation-network-welcomes-tom-sadler-new-deputy-director-mark-bauman-board-directors-member/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Press release from an organisation he was joining.
• https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/about/advisory-board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
• We can't use https://wyse.gmu.edu/ (website homepage).
• https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news-events/news/item.html?n=media-school-visiting-professors-include-award-winning-media-executive-and-npr-tv-critic is useless for notability (connexion to subject). News from a university who's bringing him on as a guest professor.
• https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/creativity/2010/fall/gigapixel-show.shtml is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an article about an event CMU is holding.
• We can't use either YouTube source (unknown provenance). YouTube videos must be (1) produced by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel to be linked to, let alone cited.
• https://thepearsoninstitute.org/globalforum2022 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Expo held by an organisation he's on the BoD of, and where he was scheduled to speak.
• We can't use https://www.erskine.edu/2023/02/07/stukes-lecture-set-for-march-1/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (If this is a press release, it's useless for notability (no editorial oversight).)
• https://www.iinteract.org/about-us is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
• https://www.wliw.org/about/awards/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://crossingborders.education/people/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.

None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Environment, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, here's a link for the NY Times article, it isn't about the person discussed here, mostly about the Grid website [14] Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - coverage is from primary sources, IMDB or passing mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made many edits based on reviews and thought it was ready for mainspace. Can someone please help me redraft this article to meet Wikipedia standards? Terry Phillips (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you find much better sources, any effort at redrafting would be futile. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Bauman news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without those, the subject cannot hope to meet WP:N or WP:BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't appear to have the SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory presented as fact. Note that article was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, which has a long history of propaganda and fabrication in Falklands-related topics. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, History, Military, United Kingdom, and Argentina. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having tried to fix this, yes this seems a nothing story, based on dodgy sources, and or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. An alleged piece in the New Statesman which is not used as a source. A claim from a Psychoanalyst. A mysterious letter. Certainly extraordinary sources - so extraordinary that they are incredible. Somewhere I read it was a proposed bombing of Buenos Aires, but that's not in Cordoba province. Cobbling together the British admission that some ships sailed with nuclear weapons but surely these are nuclear depth charges not air launched bombs. I suspect it's all pure fantasy but regardless it should be deleted due to lack of reliable sources Lyndaship (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. The 31 nuclear weapons were WE.177 nuclear depth charges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article as it stands, neutral about whether sources exist for a better one. Sorry for length, I want to be thorough here. This is a mess. A bunch of this is distraction linking. Stuff about nuclear depth charges and the like, that has nothing to do with the core claim: that the British put a Polaris sub with actual nuclear missiles off Ascension Island just in case they decided to nuke Córdoba (the city, not just the province). The 2005 Guardian article can also probably be discarded. It's just reporting on claims from Ali Magoudi's book and there's no reason to give him any weight; for one thing, he claims the British wanted to nuke Buenos Aries, which is a different city entirely. But are there sources such that the core claim -- or, at least, the core theory -- rises to notability? Well, I think this New York Times is just repeating quotes from The New Statesman (the El Pais article currently cited does the same thing, but worse). Full disclosure: I don't have a copy of the original New Statesman article. Regardless, at some point, someone did get Terence Lewin and Henry Leach to call it total nonsense, so that's a cut above most conspiracy theories. This bylined UPI article has a little more context, including that Tam Dalyell made such claims before the New Statesman and that Labour had demanded an independent investigation (which, if it happened, no one reported on; political parties everywhere demand investigations into everything all the time). After all that died down, Paul Rogers revived the allegations. You can read the draft version of Rogers' article here (if you turn your head sideways), but as far as I can tell, the only published version was in Lobster and that's not gonna do as a source. Finally, this white paper from the RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior spends a couple of pages (pp. 9–11) on it all, including the New Statesman article and Rogers's take, eventually concluding that the whole thing is totally implausible and unsupported by evidence. That's pretty thin gruel, but it miiiiight support a brief article outlining the allegation and the conclusion that, no, no one actually told a sub commander to get into position to drop a nuke on Argentina. But I don't think it would be at this name, and I don't think what we've got here is worth trying to salvage into that. Lubal (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's content is totally wrong-headed, and seems a conspiracy theory type article. As noted in the British official history, a number of nuclear depth charges were on board ships rushed to the South Atlantic for the Falklands War. This was part of their standard armament during the Cold War, and they were removed during the war. This has all long been public, but this article presents it as a great secret. As noted by Lubal the allegations that the British Government separately considered a nuclear attack on mainland Argentina might be worth an article, but would need to be reworked from the ground up. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable hoax or fanciful as well as in line with other reasons give above. Donner60 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just spent my Saturday quickly developing an article what I think is a vastly better article on this topic, which is at British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or turn into redirect to Nick-D's new article. My initial reaction was 'conspiracy theory' as I wasn't familiar with the detail and I'm probably susceptible to arguments (per proposer) that the Spanish Wikipedia is unreliable. However, having read through Nick-D's alternative, I can see there's some substance: a political debate, operational challenges, Cold War propaganda which we can't dismiss. Nick's version is, indeed, vastly better, so let's redirect to that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War#Allegations which deals with this exact subject in a much better way. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FTR I find it difficult to see a case to redirect, because I don't think this is a plausible search term in its own right, and because the article is only six days old so there is unlikely to be any significant issue with link rot. Kahastok talk 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HV 888 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in literature and only exists on the basis of being a star with an extremely large radius. Does not meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: the star "HV 888" is mentioned in several studies of the LMC, although I don't think it satisfies the criteria for significant coverge. A redirect to List of largest stars should suffice for now. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to List of largest known stars. This is one of the many articles created on the basis of a very large stellar radius, without concerning if they would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of largest stars as {{R to list entry}}: the star is currently not notable per WP:GNG/WP:NASTRO but is mentioned in the appropriate list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎

Will Carl Rufus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:ACAD. Only thing that comes close to WP:GNG is a obituary in Popular Astronomy from 1948. nf utvol (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Discovery of book reviews make sufficient case for WP:AUTHOR and papers published brings bare minimum for WP:NPROF, especially considering pre-internet era.nf utvol (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, Canada, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. As well as the two obituaries already listed in the article, I added six reviews of two books, making a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because one is an edited volume). I think for an academic of his pre-internet time, that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above, and NASA ADS shows he has a fairly extensive list of papers published (~72), in most cases as sole author. Praemonitus (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Baalveer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The series might be notable but not the seasons. None of the seasons is found passing WP:GNG. At present, Ref 1 is about the actor (Dev Joshi), Ref 2 covers trivial, Ref 3 redirects to Mid-Day about actors, Ref 4 is announcement and interview, Ref 5 is interview, Ref 6 is same as 5, Ref 7 press release, Ref 8 is interview about the actors. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or Redirect to the 1st season/Main article. If the series/1st season is notable, let's consider this a detailed article about one of the 4 seasons of a notable production. Would thus seem acceptable to me, cf. WP:SIZESPLIT. Coverage is not great but is abundant (a lot of Tellychakkar or Zoom TV articles) or things like: https://www.fridayrelease.com/tv-news-adda/baalveer-season-3-here-are-the-top-5-reasons-to-watch-this-enthralling-sony-sab-show ; it allows verification, though. (Season 4 just started and was also taken to Afd).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tellychakkar is not a reliable source as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The ZoomTv and Fridayrelease are similar level sites to Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife, these sources are looking unreliable to me and can’t establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, sure; if size is not an issue, redirect and merge it then.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources was found. The series can be notable, but we should not create articles for every season unless there is multiple in-depth coverage from secondary sources, excluding interviews. The article also fails to meet WP:GNG and is similar to the article Baalveer 4. GrabUp - Talk 18:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added multiple refs so it can pass notability. M S Hassan (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked every source that you added. It includes The Times of India, which can’t establish notability, known for its promitional content per WP:TOI. It includes a video from Times Nowthat also can’t establish notability. It includes an ABP Hindi source, which is an interview-type article, just the sayings of the actor Dev, with no in-depth coverage of season 3. Other sources are ZoomTV, which are similar to sources like Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife. I don’t think these are reliable and can establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are sources not only about Dev Joshi but also about other cast. M S Hassan (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That really don’t make this season notable. GrabUp - Talk 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guzema Fine Jewelry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article cites trade publications and a Forbes contributor article. Some of the sources are about the person for interviews. I think this article is promotional and we need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:NCORP. A G11 by a previous reviewer was declined so I will leave this for the community to decide. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Ukraine. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per good reliable sources and significant coverage in Elle, Vogue and local magazines and news papers. Added some sources --Assirian cat (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue: The First Lady of Ukraine Dressed With Pride to Meet President Biden passing mention].

Elle Elle Style Awards 2017: winners and party passing mention

We have a few routine announcements and interviews or interest articles about the Ukrainian owner.like this and articles about the founder but I do not think we get to the kind of RS needed for a notable company.

V$ Bloggy looking site with no editorial overbite that I can see.

I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP, nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Forbes article is by a contributor but I see no evidence that the article is not independent. The National Jeweler and the mentions in articles in the New York Times should suffice as English language sources. Since I cannot read the Ukrainian source I am taking on faith that those are substantial. Lamona (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Forbes contributor articles are red-lined on perennial reliable sources WP:FORBESCON. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to the mentioned references I’m adding the following good sources with significant independent coverage. Here is a good long read in KyivPost [15], a Space Magazine publication representing the jewellery industry showed the company in depth here pages 61-63 [16]. Also, here is a success story in the local top newspaper and TV channel ICTV [17] and here is an in-depth coverage from the other local newspaper [18] while here is the in-depth coverage from a business-oriented and highly reliable in Ukraine AIN.ua news site [19]. Here is also a good coverage from Vogue in English [20]. Also I’ve found a significant coverage in Polish version of Glamour [21]. Also worth mentioning is Vogue Singapore [22] and L’officiel Mexico [23] --Riva Pola97 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In addition, the topic of this article is the company - references that focus on a product (reviews, mentions, etc) or interview a company exec (e.g. a puff profile) do not establish notability (unless the reference goes on to provide in-depth Independent Content about the company- which they never do). For example, this in Kyiv Post is a puff profile on the founder based entirely on information provided by the founder and containing no in-depth information on the company - fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in cn.ua mentions the company briefly in passing and contains no in-depth Independent Content about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or similarly this in Vogue, same reasons as above. If Valeryi is notable in her own right, then write an article about her, but these references do not establish notability of the company and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On2Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Funding announcements are ORGTRIV, interviews fail ORGIND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This company was a contestant on Shark Tank India and this is what most sources cover on the page and this does not make an organization notable merely because a notable event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns or generates notable subsidiaries. The organization needs to be discussed in reliable independent sources to be considered notable. Fails WP:NCORP and fails WP:ORGCRIT. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain. I believe it should not be removed. This company is very reputed and has won awards like Forbes DGEMS 2023, Best Emerging Food Tech of the Year, FCICS Indian Awards- South India Edition 2023, IF Design Award (2021) and many more. 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - this is a "new" editor, creates an account, does some gnomish edits to establish activity (but well able to handle a complex citation and banners to their Talk page which is typical behaviour of the meat/sock puppets we encounter all the time), and within an hour of creating the new account, pops over to this AfD to !vote and then disappears again. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references come close to meeting GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject doesn’t seem to pass WP:GNG. Does appearing on notable fashion platform calls for a Wikipedia page? Because we have so many people appearing on notable fashion platform but no independent reliable sources. Most of the source on the page just only talked about her appearing and nothing more. Meligirl5 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Meligirl5 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this seems to be like a promotional work, paid work or a conflict of interest.--Meligirl5 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tried a search in .fr sites, and even then, we have only a few photo shoots that come up. "Muse of the Month" [24] is about the extent of coverage I could find, it's simply a photospread and some small text. Delete for not meeting notability requirements and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartlett (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not demonstrated. I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Though WSCC and IMSA are not explicitly listed in WP:NMOTORSPORT they are "significant international motorsport series" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some coverage about being jailed: [25]. Also [26]. Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.  

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!

I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!

I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!

I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!

Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.

I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.

Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To closer: request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at WP:Requests_for_undeletion#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - propose closure of this AfD so that the normal BLP process can continue elsewhere on the talkpage and WP:BLPN per WP:BIOSELF JMWt (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've posted some potential sources on the article talk page. Porterjoh (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A quick Google search reveals that this actress may or may not be notable. It is clear that she has no large roles post 2021. Most of her sources are about her role in Ammani which from the way it is credited looks like a supporting/minor role. Not sure how much screen time, she had but it can be considered a level below supporting and above minor.

Her actual supporting/lead roles are in Maadathy and Mmmmm while she had a lead role in Sennai (no article). The roles that she likes to take up are village/dalit roles and the confirmation of her roles can show her notability. She also played a supporting role in Vadham. While her speaking out against the casting couch against dark skinned actresses is laudable, it is also the reason why she could fail WP:NACTOR. She stars in several other commercial films however in very minor roles. Her role in Kalvan lasted a few seconds (no dialogue) and hence original research as many of her roles may be. Other roles that seem minor include "Housewife in Prabhavathy's documentary", "Mother of kidnapped child", "Kid's mother", "Einar clan member" (likely no dialogues), "Cancer-affected girl's mother" and "District Forest Officer".

She is credited second in Thunikaram but the reviewer mentions how [27] Though Semmalar Annam doesn't have much scope to perform, she does a decent job in the given time Her name is not mentioned in the review of Kattumaram and there are no sources for The Tremor. Since the other roles don't add any notability and the fact that she directs short films not feature films, consider the films/series Ammani, Vadham, Sennai, Mmmmm (role name?), and Thunikaram and if her roles are notable or not (main guideline for WP:NACTOR).

Her role in Maadathy is definitely notable: she played the lead character's mother. Semmarlar Annam in a yet another remarkable performance. How long will the mainstream filmmakers ignore her? [28] Sadly, Mmmm has no reviews and Sennai is reviewed by Film Companion (blacklisted) [29] but barely mentions much of her role. A creation of the article Sennai can help her notability [30]. Does Mmmm being sent to Oscars add notability? [31] His role seems more notable (because it's the lead). Vijayan plays a beekeeper while she plays his wife [32]. Her role could be supporting.

Her ommision from mainstream Tamil cinema affects notability greatly as 90% of her films are from there. Her roles were notably removed by editors in Valimai and Bachelor (2021 film) [33] [34], showing how short her roles can be.

Notable roles: (based on screen time)

Supporting roles:

None of her other roles are being considered for notability. DareshMohan (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: DareshMohan (I think you forgot to sign), when we talked earlier, I had completely missed the roles in Maadathy, Vadham, Mmmmm and Thunikaram among other things!!! Stupid me. I focused on Sennai. Sorry. She does seem to meet WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions. Added to minor awards and some coverage (although containing mostly interviews), I was wrong to consider she didn't meet the requirements for actors, I think. Apologies if I made you do all this awesome work. I sincerely apologise for having missed those roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close discussion. I am the nominator. An error occurred at User talk:Mushy Yank#Semmalar Annam where I was hereby motivated to do a redirect via deletion discussion. I had mentioned Maadathy and Mmmmm but at the same time that Mushy Yank edited resulting in an edit conflict. @Mushy Yank: As a compromise, can we make the article neutral, add sources to filmography and expand career section. DareshMohan (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure! Will do my best! (consider signing the 1st part of this Afd, btw, so that we can see you are indeed the nominator:D). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:HEY and WP:SNOW. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable work and achievement and enough coverage on the actress who has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. Passes WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy keep, linked from Main Page, WP:SK #6. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After careful analysis of the seemingly extensive sources, my judgement is Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people. The article cites 51 sources, so please bear with me – a full explanation will necessarily take some time.

Some important context: Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (talk · contribs), who sits on Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand's management committee and is a Wikipedia administrator. The main contributors to the article have been the New Zealand Wikipedians Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) and Marshelec (talk · contribs). Given Marshelec apparently sits on the same Wikimedia NZ management committee as Schwede66, there appears to be some problematic conflict-of-interest editing going on here. I am in the process of opening a COIN thread which I will link when finished.

Now let's get onto the sources. I uncontroversially rule out the following sources for independence concerns. By uncontroversial, I mean something like "Downard-Wilke wrote the source", "The source is Downard-Wilke's company", or "Downard-Wilke was on this organisation's committee at the time":

• 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 51.

This knocks out 21 of the 51 sources. To put it another way, about 40% of this article’s sources are obviously and uncontroversially not independent.

I uncontroversially rule out the following sources as not mentioning Downward-Wilke at all:

• 16, 20, 23, 24

I also uncontroversially rule out source 7 (raw election results, obviously not significant) and 45 (Wikipedia discussion, user-generated). That is all the sources I believe can be uncontroversially eliminated.

I rule out the following sources as cases where Downard-Wilke merely acts as a spokesperson providing brief comment and receives no significant coverage himself:

• 9, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50 plus 10, 32, 41 (on ProQuest, ask me for the full text)

I rule out sources 35 and 36 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) and sources 46 and 47 for the same reason, but I wanted to note these separately because they give slightly more extensive coverage.

I rule out source 2 as a "man-on-the-street" type of interview, where Downard-Wilke is interviewed by a German paper because he is someone with a German background who experienced the Christchurch earthquake. This sort of coverage does not indicate the interviewee is significant.

I rule out source 3 as the type of interview that is considered non-independent (see the essay Wikipedia:Interviews). There is not enough independent content beyond Downard-Wilke’s answers to the questions.

I could only partially verify source 6, finding a NZ Library record. However, given the context of the source (a local paper covering Downard-Wilke running for a regional council election where even winning candidates don’t have articles unless they have some sort of national political career), it’s unlikely it contributes to notability.

I rule out source 12 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) as covering a case where Downard-Wilke received an award from an organisation while he was on their executive committee. Not sufficiently independent.

I rule out Boulter 2020 (cites 13 and 21) because the document notes itself to be a draft copy. I have other concerns, but drafts are at the very least unreliable.

I was unable to verify source 25, which provides extremely little bibliographical information. However, judging by the type and brevity of the information it is cited as supporting (the fact Downard-Wilke won a local German bike race), we have good reason to think this is not the sort of source that would deliver significant coverage.

Source 43, a Stuff article, initially looked promising to me, but judging by the link at the bottom, it appears to have been written to promote this edit-a-thon which was explicitly geared towards improving coverage on Stuff. Downard-Wilke seems to have played some part in organising the meet-up. Not sufficiently independent.

I could not find any promising sources that weren't already in the article, so I conclude the article fails NBIO. I appreciate you reading this through to the end and I hope you can appreciate it is difficult to strike a balance between comprehensive discussion and brevity when you are dealing with 51 sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cycling, Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. – Teratix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Prob keep - I see that the OP has put a lot of work in the nom, but when it boils down to it, there is media coverage of the subject for at least two different reasons: cycling advocacy and wiki work. I appreciate that some think that interviews count for little, but in my opinion an interview shows that the subject is worth interviewing and is notable. For me, refs 2 and 8 are sufficient to meet the GNG and whilst there is some puffery, I'm not convinced this is a fight worth having. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I agree with everything JMWt has stated above on this matter. Viatori (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTYJ-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Idaho. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a ton of coverage in two newspapers (the Idaho edition of The Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d'Alene Press) for the 1994–1997 period. The station had a very bumpy early history that included an illegal transfer of control, Seattle Mariners baseball games, and a bankruptcy filing, even though it drops off the radar hard after becoming KTYJ. Reasonable WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com would have avoided this outcome. And if Newspapers.com lacks the city you need, given that we are dealing with LPTVs, ask me and there may be coverage in NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Sammi Brie's rewrite of the article with sources. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with content referenced to multiple reliable sources that together show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wael William Diab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP with no evidence of notability. Existing references are to:

• 1/3/7: primary source bios
• 2: a list of WP:PATENTS, which does not contribute to notability.
• 4: a press release
• 5/8/9: WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources
• 6: self-authored material

WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 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!} 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42: It is verifiable that he chairs the organisation. The article doesn't WP:GNG and so, redirect since he won am award that was unverifiable but I a certain it should be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I'm OK with that AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. It is difficult to WP:V the information currently on the page or whether this is the same person that several sources name as involved directly in Nazi crimes. Currently my thought is that this page should be WP:TNT until someone can do a better job of it, but I would be interested if others can find good sources to offer against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Germany. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 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!} 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Institute of Teacher Education Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 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!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity And Child Health Care Institute Benazirabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]