Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
2024–25 Malaysia A2 Amateur League
2024–25 Malaysia A3 Community League
2026 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament
2027 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament
Ancharakalyanam
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janno Lieber
Bader bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud
Template:Declination/sandbox
Template:Declination/testcases
Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes/doc
Khepar
Matthew Sethu Tshuma
User talk:Olimpex
Opsonin Pharma
Draft:PERMAS
Prashant Nakti
Template:Right ascension/testcases
Μάργκαρετ Γκάρντινερ

Articles[edit]

< May 20 May 22 >

Purge server cache

Carey Schueler[edit]

Carey Schueler (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's only claim to fame is that she was the first woman MLB drafted and thus, they lifted their ban on drafting women, both of which are already mentioned in Women in baseball and her dad's articles. While that may be the case, she never actually played in any MLB or even MiLB game unlike Kelsie Whitmore. Her time in high school and college are not worth mentioning as she was not a star athlete in either cases. The sources backing these claims are either dead links or only mention her briefly and I cannot find enough coverage for her in general to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Margaret Adamson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Corcoran[edit]

Angela Corcoran (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)[edit]

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) (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 does not appear to be a notable topic, with most references to NPB.jp (the league website) and the Japan Professional Baseball Players Association. Lacking independent reliable sourced coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

Conor Collins (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)

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

Corinne Silva (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)

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[1], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[2] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[3], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[4]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [5] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Entertainment[edit]

Green Entertainment (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 is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Farley[edit]

Trey Farley (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. Non-notable broadcaster. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Royer[edit]

Valentin Royer (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 tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Can't find any sources that involve more than just a passing mention or his one successful tournament in Tunisia, which isn't enough to meet notability requirements. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added French-language sources that mention him more than just in passing, as well as his finals/titles on the World Tennis Tour. He’s ranked in the top 200 and just passed the first round of qualifying at Roland Garros today. Mellamelina (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Frank[edit]

Alexander Frank (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'm unsure if this footballer is notable. Most of the cited sources seem to be interviews (primary sources) and I'm not finding much else in Google search results, though it may be possible that significant coverage exists in additional foreign-language sources.

This article was PRODded and deleted in 2020, albeit with less substantial content. However, I believe the notability concerns raised then apply to the current version as well. Complex/Rational 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event Supplier and Services Association[edit]

Event Supplier and Services 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)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters (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)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.
I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [6]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Road, Hong Kong[edit]

College Road, Hong Kong (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)

Article was previously declined for prod. Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED. The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says:

    Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.

    Sources
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. "書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12. Retrieved 2024-05-12.

        The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，"

        From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided,"

        The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。"

        From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area."

        The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School."

      2. "書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

        The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。"

        From Google Translate: "Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings."

        The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..."

        From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..."

        The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。"

        From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view."

        The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p. D5.

        The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。"

        From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old."

        The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。"

        From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million."

      2. "香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p. B3.

        The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建（896）發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音「發」，著重其「意頭」。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten."

      3. "九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p. D19.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million."

      4. Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20). "靚盤巡禮：九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽" [Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. B4.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，"

        From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area."

      5. "書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p. D5.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓"

        From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old."

      6. "書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p. D7.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下；至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。"

        From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 書院道; simplified Chinese: 书院道) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road.

      The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street.

      The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways. If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai, the area the road is in.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kowloon Tsai: where this content would be relevant and verifiable, while not requiring independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by OwenX. While I'm a fan of WP:50k, I also understand that not everyone ascribes. A merge is a more reasonable outcome and compromise than outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a rough consensus against keep, but not yet a consensus between merging and deletion. Further arguments in favor of keep that may shift this emerging consensus are of course also still welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [7] [8] [9]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [10] [11] [12] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, no problem.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Asim Munir (cricketer) (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 lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are allowed to use common sense. It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It simply makes no sense to delete articles when no one has searched for coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well then, perhaps you should rewrite the WP:N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11. As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why IAR / common sense exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right? Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. This is one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IAR is not a trump card, but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply. OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR. Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers[edit]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers (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)

Completely unreferenced list of parts manufacturers, with no indication that the set of these companies is somehow notable. Article was tagged by another user without proper followup but after having a look I'm taking it upon myself to complete the nomination. @Cowinatree: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migue García (musician)[edit]

Migue García (musician) (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)

Biography of a musician that does not clear WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. While several sources refer to Migue Garcia, they all cover him in a WP:TRIVIAL manner connected to his father Charly Garcia, from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Other available sources found in BEFORE search are user-generated or primary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Institute of Art and Design[edit]

Vogue Institute of Art and Design (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)

It appears to be a non-notable design school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, school profiles, press releases, or paid brand posts, including a few unreliable ones. A Google News search for "Vogue Institute of Art and Design" and "Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology" yields nothing useful either. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH imo. GSS 💬 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iligan Computer Institute[edit]

Iligan Computer Institute (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)

Private school that may not be notable due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phú Diễn station (Hanoi Metro)[edit]

Phú Diễn station (Hanoi Metro) (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)

Zero significant coverage. The best I could find is an article about an inebriated train driver at a different station. [13] Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If closed as delete, please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Same for all the others. Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SNG says that these are not presumed wp:notable and therefore must meet GNG. Clearly does not even 1/4 meet GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ifrah[edit]

Jeff Ifrah (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 resume is an advert. Besides that, I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, rather than by the subject. Adjunct professor doesn't count for NPROF, and nor does citations in general media rather than scholarly works for the bibliometric criteria. I cannot identify any other additional criteria that Ifrah may pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is promotional biography. Sources in articles are name-checks, brief quotes from article subject, interviews, and firm profiles. Google Scholar appears to have nothing of substance and his articles are not widely cited. Agree he doesn't meet NPROF or GNG, and hard to see another guideline that would apply. Oblivy (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very PROMO, the only article about this person is 16. Might have a brief mention in "gambling laws in the USA" or something along those lines, just not enough coverage about the person. Most articles are about the legalities of sports betting, not about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station[edit]

Cầu Diễn station (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)

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [14][15] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chùa Hà station[edit]

Chùa Hà station (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 has very limited coverage in sources. The article already cited mentions it once in a quote. This article [16] mentions that it's named in a sign at a different metro station. I don't think that's significant coverage. Two articles [17][18] report on trash piles at this station, among others. Again, I don't see sigcov. Three suspiciously similar articles [19][20][21] briefly report on possible plans to build parking spaces at this station, which is ROUTINE in addition to not being significant. Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyazzat Tanysbay[edit]

Lyazzat Tanysbay (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:ANYBIO / WP:JOURNALIST BoraVoro (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Khai station[edit]

Minh Khai station (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 SIGCOV. Cited source doesn't mention this station. Only other sources I found are three nearly identical articles about a safety drill held near (but not at) this station: [22][23][24] Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lê Đức Thọ station[edit]

Lê Đức Thọ station (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 SIGCOV to meet the GNG. The one source cited doesn't mention this station at all. A BEFORE search found this rather funny video about trash piled on one of the station's staircases [25], an article that mentions this station simply as the destination of the reporter's train but doesn't provide any detail [26], and this article which names the station in two captions but doesn't say anything about it at all [27]. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Giấy station[edit]

Cầu Giấy station (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 subject lacks significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline. After scouring the Internet, I found [28][29] two extremely similar sources with photos of this station. I am not sure if they count toward significant coverage, but that is all I could find, and it is not enough to meet the GNG. The one source in the article [30] doesn't qualify as significant coverage either – the station is mentioned once in a quote and twice in image captions, and the images weren't even necessarily taken at this station! Toadspike [Talk] 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Văn Miếu station[edit]

Văn Miếu station (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)

Another Hanoi metro station with no significant coverage. This one isn't even mentioned in the one source cited! Web searches revealed two articles (in Vietnamese) that mention this station once each [31][32]. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mã station[edit]

Kim Mã station (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 could find no significant coverage of this station. The one article cited provides no information about the station beyond naming it in two image captions. Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nhổn station[edit]

Nhổn station (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 found no significant coverage about this station. Sources naming it simply mention it as one terminus of the Nhon – Hanoi Station line and give no additional detail about this station. Even the Vietnamese Wikipedia article's sources have no significant coverage. This article should be redirected to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Chekroun[edit]

Amélie Chekroun (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)

Academic biography that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Their articles and books are not widely cited and there is no available significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails NACADEMIC (it seems she is not a professor, let alone one of the special types that is presumed notable), and a web search found no significant coverage, independent or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF, I don't see any books that could pass WP:AUTHOR, and her position (chargée de recherche au CNRS) is still pretty junior. Directrice de recherche (the next level up) would be more likely to be notable, although still not something that leads to automatic notability. (A note, though, re the previous comment "not a professor": the French system separates academic researchers from academic teachers more than the US or UK ones do, and she is on the research track. "Professor", in the French system, is the top teaching-track position. But our notability criteria favor research over teaching. So it is entirely possible that she may become notable in a few years despite not being so now.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFL All-Time Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WFL All-Time Team (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 is not an official or recognized team (although that would likely be impossible given the league folded in 1975) that was created by "fans of the WFL". After looking through the sources, it's likely that the "fans" were the 2 authors (and self-appointed "official researchers") of the World Football League Encyclopedia, which appears to have a limited circulation at best and is not independent. The rest of the references are either individual team media guides that likely have zero mention of the team because they were published before the league folded or self-published sites. The previous AfD in 2009 was editors voting "weak keep" and acknowledging the referencing was bad, but because there were references provided (which is clearly not a valid rationale to keep under today's notability standards). Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:27, 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 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV easily. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no evidence of notability, especially if it's not an officially recognized team. If anything, the list of players itself (sans the stats) could merged into the main WFL article. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avetec[edit]

Avetec (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)

Not notable, no longer active. Looking back at the active dates of this organisation, I couldn't find any references in news. There are references like https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-invested-300000-in-man-made-tornados-2012-12 in 2012, which appears to be an unrelated company. Looking through the history of the page, there are references, but are for things like the definition of STEM, not the organisation Newystats (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyavidhaata[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhagyavidhaata (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 agree with the original nom: "The article doesn't cite any WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG, hence should be deleted". Also, therefore, fails WP:NTV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

Juhani (Star Wars) (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)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [33] is the only sigcov here. [34] Passing mention. [35] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [36] trivia coverage. [37] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [38] passing mention [39] listicle [40] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Group[edit]

Marti Group (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 reliable third-party sources that establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major Swiss engineering company. According to de:Marti Holding, their annual turnover is more than a billion Swiss francs. Anyway, a quick search in Swiss Google News confirms notability immediately: [41], [42], [43], [44]. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Thank you for finding these sources. Although I can't read German, Google Translate revealed that the second source is routine coverage with no significant detail on the company, and the fourth source is just a passing mention, both of which fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the third one provides some depth about the company. The first source requires a subscription, so I am unable to review it; let's wait for others to check it. Additionally, it's a bit confusing whether the article is about a group of companies or an individual company, as the article on de-wiki is titled Marti Holding. If the article is kept, the title should be adjusted accordingly. GSS 💬 13:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the articles will talk about what the company does, and go into depth about their projects, and not about the company itself. I think that should be expected of most companies, but especially of private and construction companies who are not usually in the spotlight. With that said, as Kusma noted, even information about the company itself can be found to establish notability.
    The article is intentionally meant to be about the entire group, as I think that their internal company structure and who does what is not easy to decipher for the public and it's also not interesting. Marti Holding is a holding company that owns a lot of others, but in a sense it's just one of many official entities and less relevant. They call themselves Marti Group on their own official channels and that's why I named it as such. Fejesjoco (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A deal worth a billion dollars for a significant part of Central Europe's greatest infrastructure project may be "routine coverage" to you. To me, it indicates that we should have an article about this company. It is an embarrassment that we did not have one ten years ago. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the 3rd time you're trying to delete this article and the reasoning and methodology keeps changing. Before another attempt, can you please take part in the talk at Talk:Marti_Group. Fejesjoco (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energising India[edit]

Energising India (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. Not clear how WP:NFILM has been met JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endure Pursuivant[edit]

Endure Pursuivant (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. Other than mentions in databases of heraldry, I'm not seeing the level of RS needed to show that the standards of notability have been met. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endocentric environment[edit]

Endocentric environment (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. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any sources that are not simply mirrors of this article. Even if there is demand for information on the term, we obviously need sources to back up the claim of what this term means. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baláž (boxer)[edit]

Peter Baláž (boxer) (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)

With only primary sources listed, this article clearly fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. My Google searches came up with Peter Baláž (Esperantist) and a motorcycle driver, both of which are Slovak, but nothing about a boxer with the same birth name. I can't see this article lasting longer-term on Wikipedia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no medal means no notability under WP:NSPORT. Can't find any secondary coverage via a search. BrigadierG (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject was the starring role in a movie about himself (Goat (2015 film)), and his involvement was covered by such outlets as The Hollywood Reporter[45]. I'm thankful for the nomination because it gives us a chance to improve the article, although I think the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE by looking up the actor's name with the movie's name (Koza) and addressing those sources. --Habst (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the excellent find by Habst. A movie about the subject! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of Sand[edit]

Empires of Sand (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. Nothing much found to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the references are incorrectly formatted but they are there, and significant magazine coverage pre-internet is generally strongly indicative of notability. BrigadierG (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dolvoaua, Nebraska[edit]

Dolvoaua, Nebraska (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 can't verify this. The name might be spelled incorrectly. The only reference is a Wikimapia page that has been deleted. Aerial photos show a big cylinder or circular pool at these coordinates but no obvious settlement. Google and Bing searches don't reveal anything helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nebraska. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely hoax. Nothing in satellite images, nothing in any USGS topo map, and not even anything in GNIS: [46]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought this might be an OCR failure with the odd spelling, but I'm leaning hoax also. No GNIS entry is a bad sign. Nothing in a books search that might scrape up old references to a community that no longer physically exists. Filtering out Wikipedia, mirrors, and shady sites that clearly scrape data from here, literally all I can find is the 2020 report of Humanities Nebraska, which includes Dolvoaua in a graphical list of Nebraska community names. Since this article has existed since 2015, there's a real chance that HN used Wikipedia to create that list. Lubal (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Action[edit]

Star Action (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)

movie channel fails WP:Notability, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Rosenblum[edit]

Nicola Rosenblum (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

Leonard Mbotela (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Adler (diplomat)[edit]

Ruth Adler (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CombinedX[edit]

CombinedX (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:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaru[edit]

Jokaru (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)

All the sources doesn't meet our requirement for WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Maldives. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage seems to show it’s notable..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires an article being significantly covered in reliable sources WP:RS. I still don't find that in the article as the sources aren't reliable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to consider The Press unreliable and it's a review. Muniavas has various articles about the film (https://www.muniavas.com/46563) (definitely not great journalism, but I see no reason to consider it plainly "unreliable").
    The following inclusionary criteria might also be met; "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." But if everyone thinks it does not apply and sources are insufficient, sure, redirect to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film should indeed be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uptown Scottsbluff (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 prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [49], [50]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga[edit]

MV Linga (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 meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clearfrienda 💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many references that can be used other the primary sources from the owner/operator of the vessel, there is also this one though: https://www.faktaomfartyg.se/linga_2002.htm
I don't understand how MV Linga is the only Shetland Islands Council ferry article that has been getting brought up for editor issues, despite it being the same layout and similar text style to the rest of the ferry articles that I have made.
It would also be better to be more explicit with which changes would be good as it doesn't make sense that you're not allowed to make an article using references to the owners website. ZetShip (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SIC Ferries. The most applicable guideline appears to be WP:NVEHICLES, which is an essay, and anyway pretty much defaults to WP:GNG for individual vehicles. Thus secondary sourcing beyond database entries would be needed here. Unfortunately the most I can find is a fairly routine news source [51]. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but unless more sources come up - such as an offline news feature on the vessel - as an WP:ATD I recommend redirect to SIC Ferries. ResonantDistortion 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abro (tribe)[edit]

Abro (tribe) (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)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK:
Though I would share main concern. I suppose it needs deeper collective thought. I do not see any WP:RFCBEFORE to have taken place at Talk:Abro (tribe) or rather better would have been at WT:PAK.
Likelihood of similar articles in 100s?
Category:Sindhi tribes likely to have more than 250 similar stubs. The way articles seem to have formed I can imagine similar would be the case for many in Category:Tribes of Pakistan. Though there is one central article Ethnic groups of Pakistan it's scope does not seem to be tribal specific.
Importance of topic and issue
I am surprised region wise central articles for tribes of Pakistan do not exist but such large number of stubs going no where seem to exist. Baradari (brotherhood) system is influential cultural part of Pakistan and that article too is a stub. Tribal and ethnicity antecedents form clan culture / Baradari (brotherhood) so anthropologically it's important core of Pakistan's demographic history. Though not paid enough attention to on WP.
Idk if any similar articles were listed and deleted up til now but my suggestion is Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK. If no one is ready to work on the drafts then put in my user name space I shall try to promote for expansion in due course. Bookku (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is it really possible to merge all region wise articles? There are many which may not be suitable for a single list-like descriptive article publishing. Jadeja, Kalhora, Soomro, Jokhio, Bhutto, Burfat are some examples. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well developed ones need not be merged. Even for region list may be long but it can be further divided tribal district wise because many tribes are likely to be concentrated in few districts only. May be you can have separate article for extinct tribes. End of the day AfD is would not be right venue to take a detail call but project notice board would be IMO. Bookku (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameja (clan)[edit]

Sameja (clan) (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)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. The references provided are more than sufficient and reliable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know nothing about this although I am confused about the content of the page. First Samma (tribe) is said to be a clan, then Sameja (clan) is said to be a clan and then on the page there are clans (or subclans?). It is unclear to me how many of the sources on the page are actually substantially discussing the topic. Second, there are wp pages in other languages for Samma (tribe) but none have one for Sameja (clan). It strikes me that unless someone can show a source which goes into depth then we should maybe follow the lead of the other WP language versions. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)[edit]

Shoro (tribe) (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)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)[edit]

Soho (tribe) (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)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika O[edit]

Lika O (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)

Requested by Demeter39G, Here: The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog. http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Based on my review, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Most of the cited sources are unreliable or fail to establish notability due to their lack of detailed coverage. I also searched for sources but found nothing that meets the criteria of WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

As per @Cullen328 recommendation at Teahouse. I already voted by nominating this article. GrabUp - Talk 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found for sourcing, this seems to suggest she might not even be a celebrity [52]. This is all I could find, a photo [53]. I agree with the nom, sources used are not helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Medium article is just an amazing analysis and a major exposé. Maybe she also paid for this Wikipedia article? GrabUp - Talk 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milroy Goes[edit]

Milroy Goes (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 appears to be a non-notable filmmaker with no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. He has directed several non-notable films, ad films, and music videos, including Welcome M1LL10NS, a non-theatrical release whose notability is questionable. The currently cited sources offer nothing beyond passing mentions, and a Google News search yields no helpful results. This fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS 💬 04:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Goa. GSS 💬 04:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my check, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This means the subject completely fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of the sources are around his films. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage in independent (although some articles include interviews), reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (and if the majority of sources is considered to be around his films (not sure that can be said, but let's assume it is the case, it means that the films may be considered notable, so that he would meet WP:DIRECTOR). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the article about his film meets WP:GNG as it requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. The cited sources seem unreliable to me or are full of quotations from connected individuals. It fails WP:NFILM as no reviews were found and WP:NFO because the film only received coverage at the time of its release. To pass, it requires “publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film’s initial release.” I can nominate that article anytime soon. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, could you point out sources that provide "significant coverage"? WP:SIGCOV requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, almost all the sources are merely name drops. Additionally, I agree with Grabup that the film they directed appears to be non-notable as it lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG and shows no evidence of notability under WP:NFILM.
    Regarding your claim of meeting WP:NDIRECTOR, it is weak for two reasons: first, the film is likely not notable, and second, there is no coverage that discusses the subject in detail. WP:BIOSPECIAL states that "If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context." However, this is likely not possible due to the weak notability of the film. GSS 💬 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At random, for example:
    Perhaps the film producer with the most interesting experience is Milroy Goes whose film Welcome Millions is being shown on Amazon Prime in Europe and America after being dubbed in the local language. It is expected to be available for viewership in India shortly. Made in three languages and shot in Goa, Punjab, and the UK, the movie was meant to have its premiere at the IFFI 2019 but was turned down because it had been one of two Indian film selected by the Oscar committee. (https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/It’s-time-to-go-‘Over-the-Top’-for-Konkani-cinema/161417)
    In 2012, director Milroy Goes brought about a whole new change in Konkani cinema by introducing his digital theatrical film, (as was mentioned in the Afd about The Victim) (https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/Good-days-ahead-for-Goan-cinema/108329)
    Pervis Milroy Goes, known better as Milroy Goes is an Indian film director from Goa. He hails from the beautiful village of Cuncolim in South Goa. He ventured into the Film Industry in 2007 with his first short film “Vengeance”. Milroy gained a lot of recognition as a film director soon after the release of his second short film “Unexpected” in 2009. Milroy was mentored by a French film enthusiast named Anthony Coombs-Humphreys, who not only believed in Milroy’s potential as a filmmaker but also assisted him in producing a remake of his short film “Unexpected” for the international audience. The movie, which was titled “Expect the Unexpected”, featured a Bollywood actor named Deepraj Rana. The movie was released in 2011 and received very good reviews. Milroy Goes’ film “Welcome Millions”, which was released in 2018, was eligible for the Best Picture Award in the General Entry category at the 91st Academy Awards (Oscars) in 2019, but was not nominated. Milroy Goes is credited with being the person to introduce digital cinema in Goa with his debut theatrical film “The Victim” (2012).Besides filmmaking, Milroy Goes also has various other business ventures including a coffee shop, an artist management firm and a Portuguese passport consultancy firm. (It's Goa)
    These are just examples, it's +- short but significant imv, and there are many of those. If really everyone agrees this is not enough, nor for the film(s) nor for him, may I suggest a redirect for all of them to Konkani cinema (another guideline might apply if one considers the regional scope), that might help add prose to the page, which is very listy. I'm not that interested in this filmmaker, to be honest, and will probably leave it at that (I am not watching this), Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think Heraldgoa’s covarage can establish notability. And Itsgoa is a self-proclaimed blog based site according to their about us page. As it says “ ItsGoa was started in 2015, with the aim of becoming the premier portal for all things Goa. Today with thousands of visitors a month from across the world, our blog based website has transcended the virtual space, with the ItsGoa magazine – a sought after resource for visitors to Goa.” GrabUp - Talk 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Goa: A blog, yes, technically, but not a personal one and that is what matters (WP:EXPERTSPS). As for O Heraldo, not sure what you mean, but it's one of the (if not the, in English) main newspapers in Goa!! Again, a redirect to Konkani cinema might be considered. Really no time to make any further comments, sorry. Decide what you think is best. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Goa is not only a blog, but the article you mentioned above is an interview, and such articles are not accepted for establishing notability. Additionally, there is no evidence of who runs that blog or their background, nor are there details on their editorial policies. Such sources fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE. The section "The Folks Behind The Jokes" on their about us page states, "Our writers come from all walks of life, and through our social media handles," confirming that they lack real editorial control. They also encourage people to send in their stories and experiences, share their events and happenings, or create discussions around the articles they post, further undermining their reliability. The other two sources you mentioned are just passing mentions and are not even close to WP:INDEPTH. GSS 💬 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pingray (CIO)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:
Hugo Pingray (CIO) (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)

Recreation of Hugo Pingray, with the same promotional/notability issues as in February. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyewacket (novel)[edit]

Pyewacket (novel) (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 of this book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Sinema Project[edit]

Replace Sinema Project (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)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines; PAC largely became irrelevant to releated election; could be merged into background for 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona RenewIR (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft[edit]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft (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 evidence that this grouping meets WP:NLIST, the article is just a straight copy of the single database source. Can at most be merged to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football if this is deemed of some importance after all. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 420#DraftHistory.com, there are concerns about the source anyway, so new creations based on this source should probably be stopped. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are multiple sources in regards to Delta State football players being drafted ([54], [55], [56]), though I agree that a lot of the lists should be expanded upon (which myself and a lot of others are very much trying to work on), and turned into FL's. In regards to this list, I would not be completely opposed to a merge/redirect, but for now I just view it as a Stub. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's required for list notability is reliable secondary sources doscussing the grouping, not the members of the group. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary sources. The sources cited here along with the one in the article are all primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LISTN asks that "Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft" be discussed significantly in IRS as a topic in itself; separate sources on individual Statesmen in the draft are not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild[edit]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild (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; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Into the Wild". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The review notes: "While she show offers interesting information (for example, one episode talks about how to tell the difference between black and white rhinos), the overall feeling is that there's something missing. That Hanna is a strong cheerleader for animal conservation and educating kids about animals is without doubt -- but there's a difference between being a cheerleader and being an apologist. Hanna routinely dances around more substantive issues."

    2. Willow, Molly (2007-11-03). "Jack Hanna and family go global for new series". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "With his latest TV foray, the syndicated series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, Hanna is making use of his traveling companions. In addition to his daughter Kathaleen, who appeared often on her dad's previous series, Animal Adventures, wife Suzi and daughters Suzanne and Julie are part of the new show. ... Guy Nickerson, whose company Spectrum in Tampa, Fla., worked on Animal Adventures with Hanna for 10 years, helped him create the new series, which is shown in 85 percent of the country. ... The series is filmed in high-definition and consists of the Hanna family's travels to learn about animals. ... An early episode included a visit to Rwanda, and episodes scheduled to run in the spring were filmed at the Wilds conservation center in southeastern Ohio and at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium."

    3. Morse, Hannah (2018-08-21). "Latest episode Jack Hanna show features Loggerhead Marinelife Center". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "The latest episode of “Jack Hanna’s Into The Wild” features Loggerhead Marinelife Center. ... The episode, titled “Saving Sea Turtles,” takes viewers on a tour of the center’s work and shows Solana’s release. The Hannas also watch a sea turtle nesting on the beach in the episode, said Rachel Csaszar, who works in Hanna’s office at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ... The show is in its 11th season."

    4. "'Jungle' Jack Hanna Brings 'Into the Wild' to Ithaca". The Ithaca Journal. 2016-03-01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: ""Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," debuted. This unscripted series shows Hanna and his family as they explore the corners of the globe and animals and cultures. "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" is the recipient of three Emmy Awards, winning in the category of Outstanding Children's Series."

    5. Pursell, Chris (2006-12-18). "Hanna Returns From the Wilds". Television Week. Vol. 25, no. 47. p. 3. ISSN 1544-0516. EBSCOhost 510693361.

      The article notes: " Longtime syndication staple Jack Hanna is partnering with Trifecta Media and Entertainment for a new original half-hour weekly series set to launch in fall 2007. The series, "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," marks Mr. Hanna's first new project since the 1990s and will follow his adventures around the world in search of the ultimate animal experience. Unlike previous series featuring the animal expert, this series will include Mr. Hanna's family on the travels. Among the crew who will participate are Mr. Hanna's wife, Suzi, and daughters Kathaleen, Suzanne and Julie, as well as longtime crew members and confidantes Glenn Nickerson and Dan Devaney. ... Trifecta will offer 22 half-hour installments of "Into the Wild," available for broadcast during the 2007-08 television season on a full barter basis. The company will handle all advertising sales for the program through its New York office, headed by Trifecta partner Michael Daraio."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Maas, Jennifer (2023-12-19). "Jack Hanna's 400-Episode 'Into the Wild' and 'Wild Countdown' Library Acquired by Hearst Media Production Group (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Legendary wildlife host Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna’s TV franchise library, including 400 episodes of “Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild” and “Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown” has been acquired by Hearst Media Production Group."

      2. Larsen Stoddard, Aimee (2010-03-11). "Jungle Jack Hanna". Salt Lake City Weekly. ProQuest 363111415. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "He is currently hosting the TV series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, which received a 2008 Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series."

      3. Albiniak, Paige (2009-11-01). "Trifecta Jumping into First-Run Programming". Broadcasting & Cable. ProQuest 225320084. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Mystery Hunters will air in Trifecta's one-hour E/I block along with Animal Atlas. The company had been distributing Jack Hanna's Into the Wild in that block, but chose to stop distribution of that show due to low ratings."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Into the Wild to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's evidence, didn't review all of it but there appears to be enough for GNG. Will review my comment if something significantly changes. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article wasn't up to spec but the show is notable. Niafied (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 15 DNB[edit]

Chak 15 DNB (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 7 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 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TalkLocal (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 the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [57] [58], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
    Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a weakest keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 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! 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (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 copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [59], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[1][2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narayandas Laddha High School[edit]

Narayandas Laddha High School (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 cant find any mention of this school in reliable secondary sources, fails notability requirements for school (WP:NSCHOOL). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prabodhan Vidyalaya School[edit]

Prabodhan Vidyalaya School (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)

Zero coverage in independent sources,fails WP:NSCHOOLRatnahastin (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution[edit]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution (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)

Synthetic. There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sukaina Khan (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 subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.
  • I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing. It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hexaware Technologies (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)

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Claude Saclag[edit]

Jean Claude Saclag (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 WP:NKICK criteria, as well as does not have significant coverage. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Philippines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:WPMA/N, I believe he meets criteria 3 & 4. #3 because he is a former world champion (2014 Sanda World Cup Champion) and #4 because he has won multiple medals from tournaments such as the Asian Games and the Southeast Asian Games. D-Flo27 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Asian Games, SEA Games and "Wushu Championships" do not constitute enough weight in martial arts to warrant a wiki page. We have to rely on WP:GNG and subject needs to have significant coverage in independent and reliable media outlet. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The Asian Games and the SEA Games are the biggest tournaments in their regions. There are other Asian martial artists who have claimed notability through these tournaments such as Agatha Wong, Sun Peiyuan, Naorem Roshibina Devi, and a lot more. D-Flo27 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read on the top of WP:WPMA/N, it states that this is " an essay on notability". It is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guidelines and in no way supersedes WP:BIO. Therefore as of right now, their discipline "Wushu" do not have established notability guidelines. I have not taken a look at the three other subjects you mentioned, but the only way for them to have a stand alone article is by meeting WP:GNG. As for Jean Claude Saclag, routine coverage of events and lack of WP:SIGCOV

, I don't see indication that we have the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Best regards.

 Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete He's definitely had some success, but I don't think enough to show he's WP notable. Coverage basically consists of results reporting and coverage of him wanting to turn pro--all of which seems fairly typical. His three SEA gold medals in kickboxing were apparently as an amateur and WP:NKICK specifically states "Kickboxers who have an amateur background exclusively are not notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications." Saclag appears to fail that criteria. The fact that others have articles with similar achievements falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. His bronze at the wushu world championships is good, but the Sanda World Cup is an invitational event for 8 fighters per division and carries less weight (at least to me). I've held off voting because I was hoping other references might come to light, but right now I'm just not seeing him meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PackCC[edit]

PackCC (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)

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub. Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights. Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links. i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO. imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient. Howrued (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply. Howrued (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The points I'd like to say are:
  • The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users.
  • Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers.
  • This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small.
  • There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect.
The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page. Arithy (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"i think it's a bit dishonest": it's irrelevant to this argument. I expect you to argue more logically. [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additional point I'd like to say is:
  • We should see the current status, not the origin.
Arithy (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad. even if there was minor housekeeping, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability. Howrued (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability. if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it. Howrued (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just your sentiments regarding software.
According to your criterion, no one can create any pages. Is it really what Wikipedia should be? Arithy (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't really understand what you mean by this. my criterion (and wikipedia's)?isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability. Howrued (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity. I think it is already guaranteed by other users.
By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before. I cannot help wondering if you have other intention. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd. i do not, however, have anything against you personally. i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON. Howrued (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion. Howrued (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of keeping the article that concluded with "I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically". Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability. Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage.
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Residencial Manuel A. Perez[edit]

Residencial Manuel A. Perez (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, NGEO, NBUILDING. All sources are to news coverage, mostly of crime, that mentions the subject in passing as the location of the crime but does not provide significant coverage. No SIGCOV comes up in a BEFORE search either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the headline is not the test of significant coverage. The articles are about other things in the news (crimes, individual people) that happen to mention the event happened/people lived in the Residencial Manuel A. Perez. Those events/people are getting the significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have developed an alternative way of thinking about apartment complexes, but at AfD I'm nominating on the basis of official policies, not personal essays that do not represent the consensus of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Zanusso[edit]

Matteo Zanusso (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)

Redirect to List of Italy national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was a few sentences here, which would not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic[edit]

Castolin Eutectic (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 has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about Bangalore (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)

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Mustafa Hassan[edit]

Agha Mustafa Hassan (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)

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is harassing me by calling me UPE/sock on numerous platforms without any single evidence and nominating all articles created/edited by me despite meeting criteria. As for this AFD, he is clearly meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I am presenting some sources from reliable newspapers for proving my point.

  • The News International [71] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can self choose three best coverage from the ones i mentioned above as they all are best sources and are sufficient to meet GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Libraa2019, It's up to you to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should be good enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of them are best coverage. These sources are covering this actor in-depth. i presented more than what you have asked. Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Pakistan, all of them are reliable and authentic newspapers & These sources are available in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles.. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Libraa2019, Either you're not willing to grasp my point or perhaps simply refuse to WP:LISTEN. Is it a strategy to simply ignore, hoping the AfD will close with no consensus? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Such things applied to you. In personal disagreements you've gone too far. Editors have told you on other AFD's that i presented more than what you asked [72] [73] [74] [75] but you have decided not to listen any. I said it personal because you are Labelling every authentic source as unreliable, every role as minor and hoping to delete articles despite of these articles meeting criteria. Libraa2019 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am providing some other reliable sources which i found during research.
  • Bol News [78] [79] Libraa2019 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Offering numerous sources won't necessarily strengthen the argument. Can you provide THREE excellent sources instead? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history at mutiple AFD's indicates that i provide authentic sources and you reject so please leave some things to others. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you mentioned at Imaam Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [80] but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NACTOR seems met, with various significant roles (although not lead) in notable productions. (Also, WP:THREE is an WP:Essay.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom[edit]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom (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)

Nothing has been written that suggests notability, and any argument like there being sources that are full-length can shake the elephant in the room, the Catch-22 if you will: if this player is so notable, why isn't he playing? He's played zero minutes this season in Belgium's amateur third division. He has no international appearances, and in all due respect it's easier to be chosen for Thailand than for Brazil or Spain. He's 22 this month, so if he's some special player who passes WP:GNG without any professional appearances, when are they going to come? I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press, but a 22-year-old at an amateur Belgian club is clearly a different kettle of fish. While I disagree with the old WP:NFOOTY regulation that a player was notable as soon as they made one professional appearance, it's a good measure at least. Also bear in mind that [81] this source comes from King Power, the Thai company that owns his Belgian club, so it is not independent anyway. Additionally, the creator made this article as an incomprehensible quote farm from Google Translate, suggesting an unfamiliarity with Thai sources. [82] Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], among manu more Thai sources. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Google Translate: source 1 is brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium; source 2 is not independent as per the nom; source 3 is paywalled; source 4 is routine transfer coverage; and source 5 is brief coverage about him playing for Thailand under-23. Where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how you interpreted the first source to be "brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium", it is about him and most of the text is solely about his background alone. The third source is also not paywalled. The fourth source is sedifnityl not "routine transfer coverage" since he joined the team much earlier and it goes into his background as well. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career who has played for the Thaialnd olympic team and is one of few players abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An Olympic team is an under-23 team. Footballers at the Olympics get some coverage, but per Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, the only Thai going there at all is a VAR. As I said before, it's not hard to play senior football for Thailand, so if this guy is so great, why isn't he? Why are we treating someone as an exceptional promise for the future if he can't play for Thailand or for a third-division Belgian club when he's 22? Is that really an "ongoing career"? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the sources are good. Your other argument doesnt make sense because there are lots of notable footballers with good sources with Wikipedia pages who have not played for Thailand and saying its "not hard to play for Thailand" is completely dismissive. On the contrary, he is considered skilled enough to play abroad, which few Thai players do. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press – that may be the case, but I'm not sure there's any policy-based guidance that defines "hype press" or categorises them as unreliable for the GNG's purposes. That said, the Ballthai article appears to be the only in-depth piece of independent coverage. The others are brief updates and short interviews. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the Ballthai one, the other sources contain secondary coverage like "showed impressive form... is a versatile player in Midfield position Able to play both offense and defense. His highlight is his sharp reading of the game. And the interception is quite accurate. He is the third generation product of the Fox Hunt program" etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they're brief. Maybe they could be considered significant taken together, but that's up to interpretation; I'm not yet convinced either way. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face[edit]

Instagram face (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)

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Garcia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Garcia (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 baseball player. Article was deleted by discussion in 2007 and then recreated in 2014. It's different enough to not be speedily deleted, I think. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Bernhardt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cesar Bernhardt (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)

Article recreated Sadads (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)[edit]

Splint (programming tool) (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 was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taleh Ziyadov[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Files[edit]

File:KrisWorld logo.jpg[edit]

File:KrisWorld logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rumpelandrew (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not the logo of the article in question, but of a subsidiary part that has one paragraph of text in the article. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8. Also fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal.number of non free images in an article, as the actual Singapore Airlines logo suffices. Image looks to be too detailed to be a free logo. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CM Emmanuel-MASTER-Rodriguez.jpg[edit]

File:CM Emmanuel-MASTER-Rodriguez.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonic100jam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 1 (image of a non-notable BLP, but a free version is conceivable), and 8 (an image of this person, nor the figure held, does not help the user understand the topic) and 3.a. (This is the 6th NFCC image on this page) -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOA Festival 2015.jpg[edit]

File:DOA Festival 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sonic100jam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC 1 (image of non-notable BLPs cosplaying at a convention. While this specific festival could not be reproduced, free images of such could be taken at future cons), and 8 (does not help the user understand the topic) and 3.a. (This is the 5th NFCC image on this page) -- ferret (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyril Byron.jpg[edit]

File:Cyril Byron.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JonP125 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a copyvio and should be deleted. The fair use rationale is not applicable here. There is an entire category of free images of this man on the Commons which predated the upload of this non-free image by eight years. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Films directed by David S. F. Wilson[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: This is a category for films directed by someone who has either never had or no longer has a Wikipedia article about them. It has only one entry and a search for additional articles that meet the criteria of this category turned up no results. Vegantics (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Île-de-France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Recent precedents have favoured (up)merging to "Military history of X", but such a category does not yet exist for Île-de-France, so we might as well rename this one. NLeeuw (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle: what do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sugar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They are too similar MRTFR55 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Has one article only; delete, with no objections to recreation if there is more on the matter. I'm not sure about the victims category is necessary either because other victim of aviation categories are often major air disasters. I would not considered this one on that scale. Would like to hear the opinions of others on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. This is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manager of the Year Award winners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename per WP:C2D; article is Major League Baseball Manager of the Year Award. I tried to change it via speedy rename but, for whatever reason, it changed the name of the parent category instead. I tried again but it still hasn't changed. Hence why I'm trying it through full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stakhanov, Ukraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Due to the name of the main article, Kadiivka. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toll roads in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer for navigation. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete I guess. Having a roads category with a bridges subcategory would be rather odd. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of helicopter accidents or incidents in Iran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. Upmerge for now. I looked and was unable to find any other victims of helicopter crashes in Iran Mason (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found another one! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Lamorisse&oldid=1224893436 Mason (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either merge or delete, because these categories are very much not helpful for navigation.Mason (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concert tours of Europe by South Korean artists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristics of event × continent × nationality ×occupation against the guidance of WP:PERFCAT. This is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, see WT:KO#List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia. ✗plicit 00:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. This was the same side. Where is the dividing line drawn? If 1995, as I suspect, that is entirely arbitrary, there was Super 10 (rugby union) and Super 6 Rugby which were predecessor competitions run on exactly the same lines as early Super Rugby. All players at the Waratahs now, as pre-95, have a theoretical club side in the Shute Shield they can play for when not selected. Skeene88 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps there's a better way, but this was an attempt on my part to differentiate between the professional Super Rugby era iteration of the team and the historical side. This would be in the same way rugby league has Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players as a subcat of Category:New South Wales rugby league team players (though both are captured in the one article). Maybe an option would be to move Category:New South Wales Waratahs players to Category:New South Wales Waratahs (Super Rugby) players? Jevansen (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be a split for players who played pre-professionalism for New South Wales, and then who played Super Rugby for the Waratahs. While the naming probably isn't perfect, I see the split as being suitable to differentiate between those who played the the New South Wales region, and those who played for the team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its still the same team @Rugbyfan22: because it seems the Waratah's name was adopted in the 1920's. Just because they turned pro, doesn't mean they stopped being the same side. Rugby was not invented in 1995, the lineage is the same and should be maintained. This is essentially a duplicate category. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and listify, I imagine readers would be interested in the players of the pre-1995 era so that seems the easiest way (maybe with a minimum appearance threshold if stats are adequately held to facilitate that?); for the Category, does seem to be a continuous entity so only one cat needed. Crowsus (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I was on the fence between deletion and renaming when I made the nom. My hope was that other folks who have strong opinions/knowledge. Mason (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Macra (rivers)[edit]

As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [[90]]. And anyway Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (specifically from Nostalgia Critic)[edit]

don't see why they should have different targets. inclined to retarget the former to nostalgia critic cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, wait a minute
i was looking at the wrong article
disregard previous prompt, retarget the latter to doug walker (masayoshi shido lookalike) as it's not mentioned in the nostalgia critic article (and as the reception section it supposedly anchors to no longer exists)
my bad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi[edit]

I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium heptafluoroniobate[edit]

Target does not mention this other chemical. It's been 8 years since redirect was created as a temp placeholder for an article. No prejudice against someone actually writing it at any time. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit-Protected[edit]

These templates were all created before other editing protections were anything other than semiprot was available, but are now vaguely titled and (as far as I can tell) no longer used to actually request edits to fully-protected pages (I have yet to see one after about 2015). I retargeted these redirects to the dab template {{request edit}} and was in the process of updating usage but the action was contested, which is why we're here. I will of course fix extant uses if this goes through. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that I discovered this RfD through using one of these redirects to request an edit. I know what {{Edit fully-protected}} is though. I don't think these redirects being changed will confuse anybody, unless maybe they're so ancient that they don't know there's multiple protection levels yet. Retarget. Snowmanonahoe (talk ·' contribs · typos) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no strong opinion on what should happen here, but the premise of this nom is slightly faulty; When "Editprotected (the original title of the "Edit fully protected" template) was created in January 2006, semi-protection had been introduced the previous month. The separate semi-protection template was created in July 2008. Graham87 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my mistake. Amended my statement. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh probably keep all these -- edit requests are an important check on the protection system; unless there is something actually wrong leaving all these plausible typo's isn't something I'm worried about. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, I'm not looking to delete them, I'm looking to replace and retarget them. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit lost then - for example Template:Editrequest goes to Template:Edit fully-protected (and has since 2017); if someone uses it it will get the edit request open -- you want to change it to Template:Request edit which will not enqueue the edit for review, but put more work on the requester? I'm not sure that is going to help get the edit reviewed better. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone uses the wrong template, do we not encourage them to use the correct template? (alternately, if there is a "better" template, should we not tell them it exists?) When {{request edit}} was moved to {{edit COI}} there was a period of transition where folks were using the wrong template, but that has stopped and now the latter template is properly used by folks with a COI (most of the time). Someone asking for an "edit request" should be informed that there are multiple types of edit request; after all, we regularly change {{adminhelp}} into {{helpme}} when the request does not require and admin, and I have on multiple occasions changed a {{TPER}} into an {{EPER}} when the protection level was marked incorrectly. We should have names for templates that reflect what they do (that's why dabs existin the first place), and an "edit request" template doesn't reflect what it does. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the best in this case, I think these are often invoked by very new editors. Wonder if we have any workflows that are calling the wrong template for them? — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Since the target template autodetects the protection level which template used is really a distinction without a difference. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, genuinely curious, if the target template autodetects the protection level... why do we even have five different templates? Primefac (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice in weird cases where the autodetection doesn't work (of which raw HTML messages are the only one I can think of) to be able to use |force=yes and say "I really mean this level". But I guess that would work with |force=interfaceadmin too. I think the real reason is that the protection-level detection postdates the creation of both {{Edit fully-protected}} and {{edit semi-protected}} by several years, and the other three were created to match the first two. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed ben Issa[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Closed by nominator

Shinichi Tanaka (rugby)[edit]

Suggest deleting per WP:RETURNTORED. Only linked to from its own target. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.2[edit]

Windows 8.2 does not exist, and does not refer to Windows 10. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous RfD. I know it was 9 years ago and Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but the arguments made back then are still convincing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:DYS[edit]

Unused template, only one use case that I know of, which was removed in 2019. It might have been used elsewhere but clearly has not found use in the last five years or so. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, if this does (for some reason) end up getting changed, I recommend a name change. I just don't know what to call it. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff link is wrong. Delete per nom anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dpp[edit]

Literally just a wikilink, with the latter having a fancy icon that likely breaks MOS:ICON anyway. This must have been overlooked the last time a bunch of these were cleared out, but either way it's clearly just "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dag[edit]

Propose merging Template:Dag with Template:Dagger.
I'm going slightly more "discussion" with this TFD than anything, primarily thinking that {{dag}} should either be merged into {{dagger}} or renamed to make it more obvious as to why it's being used (though expanding the name might then make it longer than just typing out the <sup>...</sup> pair...). As it stands, {{dag}} by itself is potentially confusing (e.g. "what is a dag", or why it gives a superscript output) so I feel like something needs to be done. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that we still use archaic print notations instead of hyperlinked notes. How are either of those better than a regular {{efn}} note? Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Writing systems in India[edit]

Unused sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table on sex differences in Axis I disorders[edit]

Unused medical template. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pedagogy sidebar[edit]

Unused sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current tvOS/short[edit]

Unused software version template. Gonnym (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unused no longer - Apple TV now uses it (which fixes it to say that the current OS for Apple TVs that support tvOS 17 is tvOS 17.517.5.1, not 17.4). Guy Harris (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marquess of Londonderry family tree[edit]

Unused family tree. Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/South Tyrolean People's Party[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to be used in the Trentino-Alto Adige provincial elections (like this one). I'd suggest to not remove it and replace the current party shading in the articles about the TAA provincial elections with the template. Broncoviz 🗩 🖉 09:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then use it. There is no reason to create a simple template and 7 months to not use it. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Reform Jersey[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Progressive Citizens' Party[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Progressive (1912)/active[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Patriotic Union (Liechtenstein)[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Partido Federal ng Pilipinas[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/No Labels[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Jersey Liberal Conservatives[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Danish Social Liberal Party[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Christian-Social People's Party (Liechtenstein)[edit]

Unused political party shading template. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not public domain/mediatype[edit]

Unused since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Np, looks like I substituted it so no longer needed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/doc[edit]

Unused docs replaced by |DOC=auto. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ottawa Valley Radio/doc[edit]

Unused docs replaced by {{Navbox documentation}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DrChuck68 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Art Directors Guild Award for Excellence in Production Design for a Contemporary Film[edit]

Created over 3 months ago and left unused. Either they should be added to articles or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Talk:Fairvote[edit]

Talk:Fairvote (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Appears to be an accidental creation that should be at Talk:FairVote. –Sincerely, A Lime 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Closed Limelike Curves: It looks like you are right, but I don't think this requires a week-long deletion discussion. Why don't you just ask the person who made the comment if they meant to do so at the other page, and if the answer is yes just move it there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Connecteam[edit]

Connecteam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I didn't particularly want to bring this here, since procedurally the close is sound. The AFD was left listed for the full 168 hours (and 9 minutes), and I'm sure, were I inclined to speculate, I could come up with a way a reasonable admin closer could have closed the discussion the same way. There were some last minute comments, but not being a stale discussion ordinarily would certainly not be grounds for an overturn or relist. My mistake for not nomming it on a weekend.

That said, I believe the discussion I had with the closer patently does not meet the standards set out by WP:ADMINACCT, which non-administrator closers are also expected to adhere to. I won't tell you more than that I followed the rules and used the arguments raised in the discussion. is clearly not in any way, shape or form a justification, in my admittedly biased opinion. Additionally, while it is not the role of the closer (nor this review) to remedy a defective discussion, I believe (again, admitting my strong bias) any administrator exercising reasonable judgement would at least note the fact that a self-published book, as added by 扱. し. 侍. would not be considered a reliable source, and state whether they relied on that accordingly, if not instead relisted or left their own comment. That one of the others added a source that prominently displayed "Marketing Content" (תוכן שיווקי) at the top near the byline, is perhaps beyond the scope of a reasonable closer, applying an ordinary degree of scrutiny.

In my opinion, at minimum, even if the result is endorsed, this should be re-closed by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, and the closer advised not to do so in future. I am instead seeking a relist, or leave for an immediate renomination. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are. My closure was not based on the book or the Marker source, as the nominator might think, but on a deep coverage provided by other reliable sources (including VentureBeat, Forbes staff, Globes, etc.) which were added during the discussion. I don't see a big issue in closing the discussion by the administrator as the nominator is biased and for some reason always mentions the weakest sources on the page. WP:BEFORE is a good rule and it must be followed. Not long ago, I nominated a page without a thorough review of sources and I was ashamed by the community. So, I was super attentive and skeptical in evaluating the sources of the page. BoraVoro (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed from the page the self-published book and the Marker paid placement source (I didn't count on them while closing the discussion anyway). BoraVoro (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not required to analyse the sources, as the closer. You are, however, required to furnish an explanation of your process, as requested, and as you have done so now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. As I mentioned before, I followed the discussion and based my decision on it. The arguments seemed valid, but I did look at and analyze the sources to determine if they are reliable, though I was not required to do so. BoraVoro (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm happy to withdraw at this point, and have this closed per Owen's suggestion, provided you take to heart the feedback provided (which it appears you have) I think the explanation you provided here is meets the required standard, and if you chose to close XfDs again after a bit more experience, would be the type of thing we would look for, with a bit more back and forth to hash out the details, for example, on the appropriate level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow early renomination. The Keep !votes carry very little weight, which isn't surprising, seeing as they come from inexperienced users. One Keep was made by an account now used primarily for voting on AfDs, with a grand total of 52 edits to their name. The lone "per nom if not A7" Delete was also weak. A competent admin could have discarded all but the nom, and relisted to get more meaningful participation. As it stands, this is essentially little more than a contested PROD. Both the closing rationale and the closer's response above reads very much like a supervote. The closer's job is to weigh consensus among legitimate participants, not carry out their own source analysis.
Conduct aside, I can't fault the NAC for being duped by what superficially appears to be a clear consensus, so I don't think an outright overturn is called for. I also don't want to relist the same AfD, already tainted by weak !votes. A fresh AfD in a month, closed by an admin (or by an experienced, competent NAC, if applicable), is the way to go here. BoraVoro would be well advised to stay away from closing XfDs until they gain more experience, and perhaps just as importantly, learn how to interact with fellow editors. This type of dismissive tone in response to a legitimate query is incompatible with administrative actions. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX thanks! BoraVoro (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"