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
2022–23 Bangladesh Super Cup
Amusement(Hüsker Dü song)
Amy Gallagher
BBL Drizzy
Bones Gate
Dishoom(film)
Draft:Mojé Assefjah
Draft:Stefaniia Shabatura
Water(film)
WIC

Articles[edit]

< May 11 May 13 >

Purge server cache

2012 Gilbert mayoral election[edit]

2012 Gilbert mayoral election (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)

Delete per WP:MILL Okmrman (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of most-disliked YouTube videos (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)

If this list isn't wildly out of date now, it eventually will be. Dislikes on Youtube cannot be reliably counted anymore. The last deletion discussion decided to keep it for so-called "historical relevance", but I don't see how historical relevance justifies having an article that just progressively worsens with no hope of fixing it unless there's a chance of YouTube returning the dislike count. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing has changed since the last AFD attempt. There is sufficient coverage of this topic even if dislikes no longer exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman (climber)[edit]

John Sherman (climber) (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 very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leto Regio[edit]

Leto Regio (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 RS's found and fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Proposing to redirect article with Phoebe (moon)#Named features. ArkHyena (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom SevenSpheres (talk) 22:02, 12 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]

Southern Pacific 1273[edit]

Southern Pacific 1273 (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 cannot find any secondary sources covering this locomotive. Could be redirected to Travel Town Museum or deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have more than one Redirect target article proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Travel Town Museum is fine, it's associated with the museum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani[edit]

Endri Shabani (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Local-government level politicians are not inherently notable under NPOL, and subject fails GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence G. Costanzo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lawrence G. Costanzo (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 notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-lib[edit]

Se-lib (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)

Open source library without secondary coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain further? What do you mean by secondary coverage? Can you give an example? Mudcap (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, all 5 criterion set out at WP:GNG - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software in particular, there's discussion of the most likely forms that would take at WP:NSOFTWARE. BrigadierG (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY explains secondary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added references from additional sources independent of the subject. Included explanations that the library was funded for development, is used regularly in the classroom in multiple classes, on research projects, and is the subject professional training venues. I could add more instances. These should all qualify. Thank you for the improvement suggestions. Mudcap (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the sources in the article seem to be independent. For example, this tutorial was taught by a lead developer of the library. Coverage from the organization funding the project is not independent either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was taught be a developer, but the tutorial was sponsored by the independent International Council of Systems Engineers, San Diego Chapter. They decided to run the tutorial for the sake of its members, spend resources for it, and it is the listed on their website. Doesn't that qualify as independent? Thanks. Mudcap (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - WP:IIS BrigadierG (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Any of the sources used aren't reliable or are passing mentions; I don't find anything extra about this software package, other than where to download it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to Remember (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Troy[edit]

Kali Troy (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:NBIO; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wekiva Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (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)

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

  • Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [1]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".
Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:
  1. This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [2] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape Verde[edit]

Battle of Cape Verde (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 battle. The article is comprised of mostly LLM slop, and extrapolates fake/conflicting info from a real but minor skirmish (mentioned on page 159 of the source listed). – Hilst [talk] 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corné Weilbach[edit]

Corné Weilbach (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. There's a couple sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

Clermont Sans Fil (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 indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is only one source that could potentially be considered reliable for WP:NORG, but at this point it fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No reliable hits online either. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cocobb8's rationale. Though there is a list of four references, all four appear to come from the organization's own site and therefore cannot be considered RS's. ArkHyena (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Various websites mention Clermont-Ferrand, but nothing found about this wifi initiative. What's used for sourcing isn't enough, basically profiles of the org. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "sources" listed as references appear to be republished pr items by the group itself, or various blog items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Riccioli[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of in-depth coverage available online. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property Shop[edit]

Property Shop (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 about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG.
I've found very little sourcing of value on a WP:BEFORE search, however: I was able to replace the primary sourcing that this was formerly based on with one newspaper article about the show, but other than that one source I only found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, such as other similar TV shows about other people and Tatiana Londono's later career ups and downs after this show ended, which might support a BLP of her as a person but doesn't establish the notability of this show as a show. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist[edit]

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

Here is my analyzation of the article:
Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.
The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Belardo[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Fragnito[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV other than this, which seems like a press release ("The whole company expresses the utmost satisfaction"). JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep‎. No rationale for deletion present. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr[edit]

Nadine Rohr (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)

Shinadamina (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sione Fonua[edit]

Sione Fonua (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)

Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Gigauri[edit]

Revaz Gigauri (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)

Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Gama[edit]

Diogo Gama (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)

Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gál[edit]

Csaba Gál (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)

Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician)[edit]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician) (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any political office that makes them inherently notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuro Okuyama[edit]

Takuro Okuyama (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)

Yet another really poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only played 46 mins of football. Japanese Wikipedia has no decent sources. He is mentioned 3 times in this blog post and once in Reds Denk but this is far from enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Yanagisawa[edit]

Kota Yanagisawa (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)

Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. The only half-decent source found is Livedoor, a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass. Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer)[edit]

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

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 1 cup game then disappeared, although he was briefly on the books for Operário Ferroviário Esporte Clube. Searching in Japanese, I can only find Niigata University and J League, neither of which are significant. I couldn't find any coverage of his very brief spell in Brazil. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shotaro Dei[edit]

Shotaro Dei (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)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in one 2nd tier match and then disappeared to the amateur levels. Searching in Japanese, I can only find a couple of self-published blog posts like La Bola and LiveDoor, which are not considered to be WP:RS. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoji Yamada[edit]

Shoji Yamada (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)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 2 cup games then disappeared. Searching in Japanese, I can only find coverage of the musician of the same name. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio UTD[edit]

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

Notability issues and a number of references don't link to anywhere useful. Okmrman (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashaf Alvi[edit]

Kashaf Alvi (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 struggling to see how this TEEN meets the WP:N for WP:NAUTHOR or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey Awards[edit]

Bogey Awards (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 award with virtually zero independent significant coverage beyond this brief piece on the website of the Golden Globes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSA (basketball)[edit]

NSA (basketball) (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 one source meets WP:GNG criteria. Toadspike (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield[edit]

Whiteshield (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)

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

Habibullah Khan Swati II[edit]

Habibullah Khan Swati II (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)

Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and a quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can help meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry (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 is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [3] [4]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitulu Day Secondary School[edit]

Kitulu Day Secondary 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)

Non-notable institution and un-sourced article, a search returns nothing. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte[edit]

Fáilte (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 violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vette (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)

It still feels like the only good source is [5] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS[edit]

LogFS (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 software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockout 2024[edit]

Blockout 2024 (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 relevant, random TikTok trend { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No actual reasoning for this article to be deleted has been given. Cortador (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ongoing trend/news event, but already documented by entertainment and non-entertainment websites. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty ridiculous to vote for the deletion of a massive protest movement that significantly impacted the social media presence of dozens of celebrities. Especially considering a political climate that refuses to acknowledge the protests as legitimate and actively contributes to censuring folks who participate. Should #MeToo have been considered a random twitter hashtag? <IP removed> 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Rusking Pimentel[edit]

Rusking Pimentel (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)

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Osman Afrah[edit]

Ibrahim Osman Afrah (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)

Standard BEFORE seems to have found nothing about the guy? Definitely nothing suitable for a BLP, which their own works (as currently cited) are not. Not for the whole article anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Somalia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone finds something in Somali or with a different spelling of his name that I've missed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE... this looks like an autobiography to me, because there is nothing in any of the cited sources that confirms the subject's background, birth date, or height, and the photos are either taken from the subject's social media or the article creator claims them as his own work. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNXY-LD[edit]

WNXY-LD (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; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXNY-LD[edit]

WXNY-LD (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; just two sources; could merge into List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh[edit]

Faria Sheikh (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. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brenda Jean Patrick (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)

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Booysen[edit]

Zinedine Booysen (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 am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best sources I found were two sentences of coverage here and four-ish sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-WWAI[edit]

F-WWAI (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)

Once citations to unreliable blogs like Simple Flying and Planespotters were removed, there isn't any citation here and most of what I can find about this plane is user generated. I suggest it be merged into Airbus A320 family. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Mensah[edit]

Francis Mensah (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 poorly sourced BLP with no WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. The best that I can find are Abidjan 1 and Abidjan 2, both passing mentions in Ivorian media. The Feyenoord mentioned is the one in Ghana, not the Dutch team. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. I'm not going to withdraw this AfD yet as I don't think that it's enough on its own for a GNG pass. The coverage is Fifteen-year-old Francis Joe Mensah is one of the academy's best players, a lightning-quick, technically solid, left back, who can also play left wing. He predicts he will make it in Europe. He says he has no fear of failure. followed by a quote from the subject. I also think WP:YOUNGATH might apply given the age of the subject at the time (the coverage does not seem to be substantial and prolonged). I'd be interested to know what others think. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. One source on its own not enough. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

Indo-Greek 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)

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station[edit]

Acoustic 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'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekene Emigo[edit]

Ekene Emigo (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 creation by Zombie with a lot of dubious info; I can find nothing to verify the move to Leicester City nor the 1 cap for Nigeria. This hasn't always been unsourced. It's previously had the unreliable WP:TRANSFERMARKT as well as a link to National Football Teams, although the profile linked has no confirmation of his cap or even his DOB. He definitely existed because I found trivial mentions in Modern Ghana and RSSSF but none of this is even close to WP:SIGCOV. This article has existed for 16 years without a decent source so, if we can't find one, it needs deleting. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Ekwunife[edit]

Ignatius Ekwunife (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 poorly sourced BLP by a banned editor, see User talk:Zombie433 for more examples of these. The only sources found are All Africa 1, a paywalled source that says Ugochukwu Nwankwo, Diri Otimoti and Ebitimi Agogo will run the midfield and Teddy Lucky, Ignatius Ekwunife and Amakiri George in the fore. and All Africa 2, which says The goal disorganised Sharks the more and three bookings to Ignatius Ekwunife, Festus Umasah and Chidiekeke Okefe in a spate of five minutes

These are both passing mentions in a match report and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I am unable to verify anything else from this stub and, even if I could, notability is still a big issue. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunji Adeola[edit]

Olatunji Adeola (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)

One of many dubious BLPs created by the same permanently banned user, see User talk:Zombie433 for many other examples. I have searched all combinations of Olatunde/Olatunji Adeola Waidi, including changing the name order, and found no useful coverage. All I can find is the same Sky Sports article already used. It's a passing mention so does not comply with WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLAS-LP (Florida)[edit]

WLAS-LP (Florida) (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 secondary sources, lacking in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't see any WP:SIGCOV present for this radio station. The disambiguation here makes a redirect impractical. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another remnant of the non-GNG-based looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2011, which at times seemed to be based more on existence (which is neither notability nor proof of same) than true notability, much less any verifiable information about anything beyond the license itself. Sourcing solely to FCC records and database entries (one of which is not even about this station…) is no longer considered acceptable — if there's no significant coverage, there should be no article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Das Bobby[edit]

Abhijit Das Bobby (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject was never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and article relies majorly on sources that do not satisfy SIGCOV and INDEPENDENT, hence, fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness[edit]

Quantum weirdness (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)

PRODded with the following statement:

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

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

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

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

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists[edit]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists (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)

Could not find any independent, reliable sources covering this group. Toadspike (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Dodecaphonics[edit]

Dartmouth Dodecaphonics (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 found. Toadspike (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Seekda (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 independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 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 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.

      The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."

      The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."

    2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.

      The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."

    3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.

      The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."

    4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.

      The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
    1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
    2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
    It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
    1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.

      The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.

      "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.

      "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."

    2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.

      The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: You said:
Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT
I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, Teratix (talk · contribs)! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Mao Zedong[edit]

Early life of Mao Zedong (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)

Except for Mao Zedong, no other celebrity has his early life clearly written in the main article and has to open a separate article Coddlebean (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo[edit]

International Hobo (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 company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 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: [18] [19] [20]. 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]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Watch Tower Society publications (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 a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFL Tables[edit]

AFL Tables (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 and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)
As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!
Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify so that Teratix is able to access the material and merge it into his draft. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 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! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear[edit]

Ultraman Tregear (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)

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reject: Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the article, you have serious bias 48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
    If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters: Fails GNG. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE including a search for ウルトラマントレギア found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV, from independent reliable sources. Keep votes are depending on name mentions and primary sources neither of which show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia national football team[edit]

Silesia national football 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)

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.
The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.
Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 12 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]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (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:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election. Soni (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (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:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries for a similar recent AFD Soni (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of Gujarat[edit]

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

There is no specific list for the parliamentary constituencies in Gujarat, only the list for the legislative assembly constituencies in Gujarat exists. Thus disambiguation page is not needed. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid disambiguation page. The list of parliamentary constituencies in Gujarat is a section within a separate page, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that List of constituencies of Gujarat isn’t a term that could be used to refer to that sub-list. As far as I can tell, this phrase is one that can be used to refer to both lists, and this is therefore a valid dab page - per WP:D2D, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which [this]…phrase might be expected to lead. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's definitely a helpful page that very well distinguishes the two pages from each other and allows the user to choose which page to select. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield[edit]

Security Shield (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)

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation. I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender[edit]

Ultimate Defender (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)

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only see how-to remove guides and forum posts on goods. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in any shape or form. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
HijackThis (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)

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep)
Related discussions: 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT)
Logs: 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 5 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! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anumta Qureshi (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. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.
  • Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles? I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::information Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Enough, Saqib. More of this casting aspersions will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 5 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! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

Mutta (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)

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [27] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Loka II[edit]

Vida Loka II (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 song, fails WP:NSONG. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:28, 5 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! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some sourcing which I have added, all from the 1994–98 period. They were on local cable and got coverage from that. Once Cox dropped them, they really drop off in local coverage. I could go either way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, The new sources seem to be enough to say that it at the very least was notable enough in it’s early history to justify keeping it, but due to it being from a very specific point, I’m have to keep it at semi-weak. Danubeball (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I decided to say that this station probably does have the coverage to continue being on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The coverage from the 1990s added by Sammi meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Technical data, fails WP:SIRS 1. "Facility Technical Data for WGBS-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
Mill news about new programming, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ Harville, Bobbie (November 10, 1994). "Inspirational TV: Genesis TV 7 brings new line of family shows". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. Y6. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station changing signal 3. ^ Knemeyer, Nelda L. (April 27, 1995). "Genesis TV7 changing signal, adding new markets". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. N7. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station struggles 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Nicholson, David (May 14, 1998). "Station strruggling [sic] to stay on cable lineup: Hampton owners confer with NAACP". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. C4. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about lineup change 5. ^ Nicholson, David (October 10, 1998). "WPEN burned by Cox decision to change lineup". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. D1. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
FCC database record 6. ^ "Transfers #170659". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. November 22, 2021.
Database record, fails WP:SIRS 7. ^ RabbitEars TV Query for WGBS

 // Timothy :: talk  18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Kabobo[edit]

K. K. Kabobo (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:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. The only reason this musician got coverage from the media (both RS and non-RS) is because of his death, which falls between WP:BLP1E (recently died) or WP:BIO1E. It’s all about his death and nothing else. Nothing to establish notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep this article.The reason is because this person was very notable when he was living, its unfortunate that little information has been written about him in the internet era, but he is really notable in Ghana, his death is not the reason why we have much publication about him, but rather it's his contributions he made to the Ghanaian music industry,kindly keep the article as we continue to make improvement to the article.08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Jwale2 (talk) 08:10, 5 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! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. This was another article hastily created postmortem without seeing if subject even passed notability standards. While the editor voting keep above says "as we continue to make improvements to the article", they haven't edited it since the end of March. There's still virtually no content with nothing about his career and just an unsourced list of songs. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 08:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Pretorius[edit]

Bader Pretorius (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Institute of IT Training (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. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 10:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 5 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! 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sourcing is insufficient. Reads like an ad article. Cortador (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENAPU[edit]

ENAPU (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Article on a small company formed in 1970 with just "it exists" type info. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I am currently unable to review this nomination individually, but in the event that the deadline passes before I am able to do so, I would like to request that the page be redirected to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru as a section which includes enough coverage of this and similar entities can be created. AlejandroFC (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 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! 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The best I can find are company listings and PR items on this site [28], none of which help notability. I don't find coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing in the Spanish wiki article is a government website and a history of marine transport in Peru, but that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano)[edit]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano) (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 bus stop is not notable. The sources only give passing coverage at best. Should be redirected to Metropolitano (Lima). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While this is certainly not a policy-based reason to delete, just take a look at the photo of the stop in the infobox--it should be obvious that this is not a notable stop in and of itself. No real sources to be found, and the eswiki article doesn't provide any helpful sources, either. The street itself, however, does appear to be notable (the street is what's covered in most of the sources if you do a search), and that could also be a possible redirect/(small) merge target. Bestagon ⬡ 01:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to a redirect per OP. Bestagon ⬡ 10:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

Stuart Bell (figure skater) (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:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AHRC New York City[edit]

AHRC New York City (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:NORG and WP:GNG. No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search. Daask (talk) 09:55, 5 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! 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge window[edit]

Merge window (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)

Essentially a WP:DICDEF that has been insufficiently sourced for over 8 years, and the only "source" provided is a forum post. If this concept is at all notable, then it can just be a one-sentence mention in software development process. ZimZalaBim talk 14:39, 5 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! 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Stapelberg[edit]

Ernst Stapelberg (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Three sentences here was the best I found. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kourage Beatz[edit]

Kourage Beatz (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)

First off, this is a hoax. It has been recreated by different accounts and most recently speedy deleted as Tochi Bright Clement by Vanderwaalforces. The sock case of this user is still ongoing here. This should be Deleted and Salt. There's no evidence of notability, the reliable sources listed never mentioned this subject except for the press release sources and user generated sources. @T.C.G. [talk] 05:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per nomination, there's a bit of a backlog at SPI though. db-hoax, db-banned, db-bio, take your pick. Wikishovel (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a technical reason why we're discussing this, rather than simply speedying per G5 (etc.) and salting? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt with extreme prejudice, obvs, by any means necessary speedy or otherwise. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: There is, by all means, no reason for this to be at AfD at all, lol. It should be a speedy delete and salt. The young man isn’t ready to give up on self-promo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The single vendor chart (Anghami) that his songs have appeared on is considered a WP:BADCHART. The Top Naija Music Awards is not a credible award in my opinion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, it's all fabricated! @T.C.G. [talk] 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt - Note that this article is not a hoax, which would be an article about someone who doesn't exist. This musician does exist but that's all he has accomplished for our purposes. All of his media "coverage" is at self-generated platforms, social media, and gullible web services that reprint promo announcements. Someday his relentless self-promotion may kick in somewhere else, but keep us out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520, ambiguously, hoaxes also mean spreading false information and that's what I meant. The article contains fabricated claims made by the user like winning an award and producing some notable individuals projects. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, a good example is the Mars hoax, false information deliberately spread about something quite real. But I'm glad an AFD was created, thinking about it: if it's not speedied, we'll be able to tag future posts on Mr. Beatz-Lonky with db-multiple A7 and G4, rather than waiting for the SPI to get through the queue, or A7 with a hoax tag underneath so some admin has to go through all the references to determine that it's a load of rubbish about someone who exists and was nominated for a minor award. Wikishovel (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Mr. Beatz-Lonky' lol. Right on point though. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections[edit]

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I have not found significant coverage of this topic. Also fails WP:NOTDB; including all of the results for all of the mayoral elections would make this page massive. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Including each mayoral result (about 50 in total) would only make the page about the same size as Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales or 2021 New South Wales mayoral elections, hardly "massive" by Wiki standards Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third entry in WP:CSC provides a good metric for when a list gets into WP:NOTDB territory. That guideline states that "[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" may be appropriate. However, such lists "should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". The list is already 12k of wikitext from 2 entries; 50 entries would far exceed that limit. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Auspol wiki has been notoriously poor at recording local elections despite a wealth of information about them being available, and recording all results would see the page be as large if not smaller than most other auspol results pages. NSW is also the largest state and its mayors are generally very notable & attract a lot of media attention. Goodebening (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenny (rugby league)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn1548 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington[edit]

Cora, Washington (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 a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [29] [30] [31]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [32](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [33] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the lack of valid sources describing this as a community Claire 26 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; sources just show this was a rural post office, and there is nothing at the site now except a "Cora Bridge". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with rewrite/reclassify see the Talk:Cora, Washington page for sourcing on Cora that I was able to find (I'd paste it here but it's fairly long); to me this was a community though not large and seems to have existed in strength from the 1890s to maybe into the Great Depression. Founders were family that began Claquato, Washington, so there's some connection there. Obvious that no formal community exists now so my proposal is to rewrite/reclassify the page (rather than deletion) claiming it to be an extinct community/ghost town.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kizito[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, in this brief profile, this, this, this and this. Whether when combined it's enough to reach WP:GNG I'm not sure, but with what we have and what is likely available offline I think it's worth a weak keep, although I'd suggest a redirect to Kenya international players if a list did exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Nice try, but lacks reliable references. Two of the references on the page are dead, and those who are live barely qualify as substantial. Of the sources provided by User:Rugbyfan22, the last one could contribute towards notability, but we’d need a few more, and in different sources for this one to pass. Would support redirect to a Kenya International Players list, if someone creates one. ANairobian (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.[edit]

Gotham, Inc. (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:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. There's literally no content in the article, just a list. Sources are all press releases. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 07:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fish market (Nouakchott)[edit]

Fish market (Nouakchott) (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 Nouakchott fish market, though often highlighted in travel guides covering the city, doesn't possess the sufficient secondary coverage, distinctive traits, or historical importance required for a Wikipedia article. The potential for substantial expansion beyond a rudimentary description is minimal. Mooonswimmer 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Gowen[edit]

Bradford Gowen (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 sources on the article, only a single promary external link Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Hudson[edit]

Doc Hudson (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)

Having a hard time finding any valuable sources about this character per BEFORE. Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cars characters. Article is all cruft, most of it unsourced. Extensive BTS content doesn't automatically make a subject notable, while there's no independent coverage or reception. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Lenarduzzi[edit]

Rhys Lenarduzzi (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 am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion[edit]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion (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:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @Manyareasexpert didnt delete several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, only unreliable sources were deleted. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Seems notable and important Marcelus (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11. This was NAC-closed as "SNOW" early, despite not meeting the general criteria for SNOW. I encourage the AfD nominator (also the DRV appellant) to reply to some of the 'keep' opinions above, addressing their concerns from a P&G standpoint and discussing SUSTAINED as it may apply here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable unit, enough RS. Florificapis (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings all, thanks for all the votes. WP:GNG is a complex guide, and all of the criteria of it should be met for the article to meet GNG, including WP:SUSTAINED. It's not enough for the article to have "good" or "many" RS, the SUSTAINED criteria should be met for the article to exist. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupteswor Cave, Parbat[edit]

Gupteswor Cave, Parbat (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 significant coverage in reliable sources with only 10 Google search results. Fails WP:GNG. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo[edit]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo (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)

Doubtful lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Felemi[edit]

Jethro Felemi (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Tongan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNKJ-TV[edit]

WNKJ-TV (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 recent review of FCC records, available literature, and the Kentucky New Era indicates that WNKJ-TV never broadcast, even though a permit was awarded. The FCC lists the permit as deleted May 7, 1984. We do not maintain articles, except in exceptional circumstances, on TV station permits that were not constructed, which applies to WNKJ-TV and the second attempt at the allocation, WKKT-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this should have been deprodded and brought to AfD because the case is fairly clear. For the record, I wrote the prod text which has been copied here and would vote delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Given that the only source for the claimed "actual operation" of the station (that apparently never actually happened) was the Broadcasting Yearbook, I feel confident in deeming this another reason why sourcing solely or primarily to databases is not what Wikipedia is looking for in 2024. We need significant coverage, and stations that never were tend not to get that in the end. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing SIGCOV despite (possibly erroneous) database listings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Barkerville[edit]

CFAV Barkerville (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 says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Haro[edit]

CFAV Haro (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 says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhum Auda[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. The current archived reference seems to only be a single sentence database entry, and a WP:BEFORE search revealed only similarly trivial mentions/database entries.

As an aside, I believe that this is the first article I have nominated for deletion, so please let me know if I have missed something here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunkerdown Sessions[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Basically just a list of songs performed. This should be a paragraph in Delta Goodrem at most. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-AMG G 65[edit]

Mercedes-AMG G 65 (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 think the article is not needed. G class is a perfectly good page, and this is a minor variant. Saad Mirza (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Mighty Young Joe GMSC Badge.jpg[edit]

File:Mighty Young Joe GMSC Badge.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Writereditor19 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems to fail WP:NFCC8, individual fair use logos available in respective articles, addition of a "handshake" icon doesn't seem to increase a reader's knowledge. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frequency.PNG[edit]

File:Frequency.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BorisFromStockdale (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, low quality, seems redundant to File:Sine waves different frequencies.svg. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Henry Moyle.jpg[edit]

File:James Henry Moyle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jordanrmorales (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely non-free image, file has copyright marking. Uploaded in 2016 with claim of permission and CC license, but no response from uploader when requested to confirm permission was obtained. Image no longer in use on Wikipedia, has been replaced by PD image from Commons. --Michael Snow (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the National Assembly (Hungary).svg[edit]

File:Logo of the National Assembly (Hungary).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PLATEL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Hungarian works by official authorities (governmental works aren't copyrighted. Kys5g talk! 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? I don't understand how that's a reason to delete the logo. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nomination proposes to relicense the logo as free, not to delete it.
According to the Commons page on Hungarian copyright rules, only edicts of government are exempt from copyright. We seem to derive that city coats of arms are exempt since they are introduced by explicit regulations. Do we know whether this is also the case for the logo at hand? As a secondary matter, do we have a source for the vectorisation? If not done automatically, the svg rendering may well also bear program copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visagesdenfants.jpg[edit]

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

Replaced by the original film poster, PD on Commons: c:File:Visages d'enfants, affiche.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing by Victor Brindatch oil on canvas painting 100x130.jpg[edit]

File:Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing by Victor Brindatch oil on canvas painting 100x130.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mvladk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC8 Contextual Significance. The image is being used in the article Dolphinarium discotheque massacre. The fair use rationale states "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article" but the article is not biographical. The article is not about the file/art in question, the art is merely illustrating the topic of the article, and does not add significant understanding of the article topic. Consigned (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Churchslogo.svg[edit]

File:Churchslogo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koman90 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Also affects:

File:Church's Chicken logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Benstown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 16.jpg[edit]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 16.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of a recent parade float. On Wikimedia Commons, dozens of images of parade floats have been deleted already (for example, c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Festival of Fantasy Parade and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teemo.JPG). As English Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law, this commercially-licensed image infringes the copyright of the float designer and must be deleted from the website. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 12.jpg[edit]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 12.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of copyrighted artwork on the truck. Too prominent to be de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 15.jpg[edit]

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 15.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same case as #File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 16.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Nigerian books by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Also delete Category:2015 Nigerian books, Category:2017 Nigerian books

Contains two subcategories, each containing only 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transport infrastructure by decade[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, very complicated tree for only a few subcategories about bridges, canals and lighthouses. Note that this nomination is not about these bridges, canals or lighthouses subcategories, but only about intermediate container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital amputees[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here I did some more research:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people under "Specific Intersections":
    "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"
    There is a main article on this subject as I noted in my original response.
    Thank you as I am learning to navigate this process. Calculatedfire (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as constituted, though open to other alternatives if somebody's got a better idea. The distinction obviously hasn't been upheld all that well in the past, but today there is greater recognition than there used to be that there is a qualitative difference between being born with a congenital limb difference and the later loss due to injury or disease of a limb one previously had. It is, for example, one of the reasons why we moved Category:Amputee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople with limb difference about a year and a half ago, so that the terminology was more inclusive. Medical literature is stricter on the distinction now than it used to be, referring to congenital limb difference rather than congenital amputation; people with congenital limb differences are more outspoken about the differences; even media try harder now to recognize and respect the distinction (even if they're not always perfect); and on and so forth. So really, we should either allow the category system to uphold the distinction, or pick an alternative term like "people with limb difference", instead of continuing to use "amputees", if consensus really wants to collapse it. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions[edit]

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

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

Redirects[edit]

Big Valley Bash[edit]

No mention and literally get nothing when I search it up on Google. Likely Delete. Okmrman (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Country Bash[edit]

No mention Okmrman (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Music Festival[edit]

No mention Okmrman (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Country (U.S. TV Series)[edit]

No mention. Okmrman (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Trail Hot Springs Montana[edit]

Not mentioned Okmrman (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd[edit]

Have no problem with current target but this was created by a vandalism account who redirected it to The Holocaust. Okmrman (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Okmrman, I apologise in advance if I am missing anything here, and I don't intend this to come across in a negative way, but - if you don't object to the redirect's current target - would you mind expanding on the reason for nominating it at RfD/what action you would like RfD to take with the redirect as it currently exists? Judging by your comment here, it seems that you may be concerned that someone could revert the redirect back to its previous target (please correct me if I'm wrong, though) - are you proposing that those elements of the history be revision-deleted? I apologise if I've worded any of this poorly, and please let me know if I have. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think like maybe a deletion and recreation or a deletion revision. Okmrman (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pittville, California[edit]

Possible WP:REDYES? Pittville is mentioned in the page but as a WP:SELFRED Okmrman (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortitude Music Hall[edit]

No mention. Okmrman (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Red Bluff Recreation Area[edit]

No mention. Okmrman (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moondance Country Fest[edit]

No mention. Okmrman (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of film accents considered the worst[edit]

There is no information that I can see at the target regarding film accents considered the worst or best - just a general page regarding English-language accents in film. These redirects may therefore be confusing to readers using them, who would expect to find such information at the destination article. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not linked anywhere in mainspace, and the AfD was closed as delete, although it should be noted that the closer was open to a future redirect to English-language accents in film (which at the time was still in draftspace). Either way, there is no need to keep misleading redirects around today, especially since there is no such subjective list anywhere in the article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

90scars[edit]

Searching it up, I just get 90s cars. I think 9Oscars would be a much more reasonable stylization. Okmrman (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reee[edit]

No mention of this meme in that article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the expression is indeed associated with Pepe screaming, it is not mentioned, and has also been used in a derogatory way against autistic people outside of Pepe the Frog contexts. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Core i2[edit]

This may not be a good redirect because if a reader typed in "Core i2", while there is a chance they may be thinking of Intel Core 2, it is also possible that they mistyped in Core i3. There's a bit of ambiguity here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as redirect from expected mistake. As Intel named their later processors i3, i5, i7, i9, readers might be thinking the previous one was also called "i2", which is more likely than typing the wrong number. The hatnote makes it clear that there isn't an actual "Core i2" and that the "i" designation came later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving[edit]

Was a redirect to Groove and then became a redirect to Groovin'. I changed to a wikit redirect. I don't know if Groovin' is the best target since when I search it up, I just get the dictionary definitions. Thought about redirecting it to Dancing but there are a lot of different meanings for grooving. Okmrman (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yelping[edit]

Was a redirect to Yelp but I just changed it to a wikit redirect. I feel like a better target would be screaming Okmrman (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaky Boots Festival[edit]

Shaky Knees and Shaky Beats but no mention of Shaky Boots Okmrman (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottertail River[edit]

potential WP:REDYES? Okmrman (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Creek Valley (Montana)[edit]

No mention Okmrman (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alder Gulch Short Line Railroad[edit]

So a specific shortline railroad just redirects to the general page for shortline railroad without any explaination? Okmrman (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moralfaggotry[edit]

I know that this is an insult but how does it specifically relate to Project Chanology. Also, person who made it was a vandalism account. Okmrman (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Face cancer[edit]

John Campbell died of facial cancer according to the article on him. So "face cancer" or "facial cancer" is not limited to Tasmanian devils. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:NHL team abbreviations[edit]

Unused, no clear purpose. If need be, it can be substed on some project page but this is not a template or used as a template in any meaningful way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clarkson, Hammond & May[edit]

Over saturated template combining three navboxes. The title of this navbox implies that James May, Jeremy Clarkson, and Richard Hammond are a group that works together, which they have on the original Top Gear show, but are not a performing trio. Clarkson, Hammond & May are not a group. Just three individual people. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template is work in progress, which is why it's not used anywhere currently. The navboxes are sort of by necessity, to avoid information here becoming out of date when the individual navboxes get edited, though its not particularly elegant, partly because I'm not too familiar with the coding for templates. I'd prefer to have them indented within the people section instead of at the bottom.
On the last part, Clarkson Hammond and May are absolutely a group, that's why I even made the template. In the past Top Gear was their main show, with each having a number of side projects they presented alone. After the switch to Amazon this still continues.
Previously, there only was the main Top Gear template, which considers Top Gear until 2015 and the one since then, with different hosts, the same show (which it technically is). Therefore, other projects related to the three can't be put in the Top Gear template (like DriveTribe, or people like Andy Wilman that started out on Top Gear but left with the trio and now runs The Grand Tour). The fact that Grand Tour even exists, and took with it a large part of the Top Gear audience away from the actual Top Gear should show that they are in fact a trio and no three people who just happened to host the same format for 20 years. There are dedicated articles about performing duos that spend less time actually making things together than them (see Fry and Laurie, or Please Don't Destroy for a trio).
Overall, I think it can provide useful navigation, especially because the Top Gear template isn't used on any of their articles, which would introduce a lot up redundancy. I'm open to suggestions for improving it, but when the main argument is that the three aren't a group I'll have to disagree. -- jonas (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes being out of date has no relevance to this discussion. All it requires is simply editing to remove or add relevant links for the subject of the navbox. But all you did was add links from their navboxes to this one which makes it even more redundant. Duplication is what you ended up creating which is something we have to avoid with templates. And if they're a group, you should provide evidence and as you say, "In the past Top Gear was their main show, with each having a number of side projects they presented alone." The latter doesn't support your case. If they have had projects on their own, then that doesn't make it a work of the group. A solo project is not a collaboration. Now there are only three links in the navbox following the removal of unrelated links. This navbox no longer has any useful navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. No existing article for the "trio". Should be dealt with in the templates for the individuals, and also relevant navboxes like {{Top Gear}} etc. Creator doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:FILMNAV and WP:PERFNAV, and the individual navboxes need trimming also. --woodensuperman 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have trimmed this and the individual navboxes now to meet WP:FILMNAV and avoid redundancy with {{Top Gear}}. --woodensuperman 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing so for the other two navboxes. I was going to do that today but now the nominated has only three links following your cleanup. It serves no navigational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The navbox now has two links. Another relist wouldn't do anything for this discussion as there is no longer a benefit with the navbox following the removal of unrelated links and top of there being no main article which would support the need for such a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting to Jonas1015119 and Randy Kryn in case they were unaware the template has been significantly trimmed, and whether that will impact their decision(s) in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TRK[edit]

Navbox with no blue links. Unclear if any of these things are even real. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nord Anglia Education[edit]

Promotional template for a school group for whom half of these are going to end up redirects to Nord Anglia Education Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the template in 2019 to link schools operated by the same company (there are similar templates about American public school districts that I've created). This does not have to be promotional template so long as the articles within are kept at bay so that they are descriptive and not promotional. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a navbox I would expect to exist. I've done the cleaning to remove non-links, redlinks, and redirects per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX that clearly establishes that this has a reasonable number of links to meet our expectations for navigation (e.g. WP:NENAN). Izno (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Certification Table Summary[edit]

Just a violation of MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your suggested alternative? See my query at the other nomination as similar questions arise. The function of {{Certification Table Summary}} is to add sourced certifications which are summaries of other sourced certifications which are used in the same table. An illustrative scenario (and the primary use case) might involve a European certification alongside separate certifications for specific European countries. MOS:COLHEAD recommends using separate tables instead, with explanatory sub-headings for each table. Are you proposing to split each of the 1,500 tables where this template is utilized and add a separate single-line table with a heading for the summary? Are you suggesting to add {{Certification Table Bottom}} to each? Can you give an example of how it would work? The same practical questions also arise. Muhandes (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it may seem obvious, but the statement above explains why it's necessary to distinguish between what appears above and below this template. That's why we're asking for clarification about what will take the place of this template if it's removed, while still keeping that distinction intact. --Muhandes (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Certification Table Separator[edit]

Just a violation of MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your suggested alternative? The primary function of {{Certification Table Separator}} is to distinguish streaming certifications from other types of certifications. This distinction became necessary due to the significantly higher number of units required for streamed certifications, which caused confusion when both types were mixed together. MOS:COLHEAD recommends using separate tables instead, with explanatory sub-headings for each table. Are you proposing to split each of the 2,600 tables where this template is utilized into separate tables for streaming and other certifications and add explanatory sub-headings? Would {{Certification Table Bottom}} be added to both tables? Considering specifically that you also nominated {{Certification Table Summary}}, which pertains to both types of certifications, how would the summary be applied? Can you give an example of how it would all work? Practically speaking, would it be done by painstakingly editing the 2,600 articles? I don't see how breaking {{Certification Table Bottom}} can be done automatically. Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is just remove it. I don't know how "painstaking" that is: seems like it could be done in seconds by a bot. They should never have been added in the first place, so I don't see why they are necessary. Who needs these? They are inaccessible and directly contradict best practices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the separation is necessary has already been stated: This distinction became necessary due to the significantly higher number of units required for streamed certifications, which caused confusion when both types were mixed together. (I took "they" to refer to something that splits the data. If you only meant the column headers in the middle of the table, I apologize. Should it be possible, I have no issue with the suggestion of having a bot split the tables, but I think a distinction between streaming certifications and other types of certifications is needed.) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ayakanaa noted, I have previously elucidated the rationale for the necessity of this distinction. To illustrate, examine the history of the {{Certification Table Separator}}: it was added in 2020, nine years subsequent to the creation of other relevant templates. This period coincided with confusion among editors, leading to requests for its implementation. Consequently, though not mandatory, editors have included it in approximately 2,600 articles, underscoring its recognized significance. Muhandes (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netflix Christmas films[edit]

Unnecessary intersection. We already have way too many Netflix navboxes as it is, we should not have them by genre also. --woodensuperman 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "unnecessary" for what? Christmas? Please read the Christmas article, it is about a major yearly December holiday which is featured in many films and literature. Netflix seems to have focused on this holiday for featuring in its programming, and the navbox creator has done the encyclopedia a service by providing it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres no article for List of Christmas films produced by Netflix though, is there? Why not a navbox for {{Netflix comedy films}}, {{Netflix drama films}}, {{Netflix action films}}? Why specifically Christmas? It's total overkill. We do NOT need navboxes like this. --woodensuperman 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. When an article on the subject does not exist it's usually a telling sign that the navbox should not either. Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Next Indian elections[edit]

The majority of links with articles for an election by year or in a state of India are being transcluded by their respective state election navboxes. And those navboxes are enough to link the respective election articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell[edit]

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Page seems to be a manual listing of articles that has not been maintained for years. It seems that using an auto generated category from Template:being merged or similar would serve the purpose much better than the holding cell. Soni (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

'phone[edit]

'phone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems like a flawed nomination. See wikt:'phone. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse regretfully Allow recreation. We need a good reason to delete a redirect, especially for a word that appears in the dictionary, and no such reason was provided by the Delete !voters on that RfD. But the closing admin correctly read the consensus. In a WP search for 'phone, the "Telephone" result doesn't even appear in the top 200 results. This was a correct, but unfortunate closure that should now be amended. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation for how long its been since the RfD Mach61 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror[edit]

Ami Dror (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing a Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the closing statement could have benefited from at least a brief closing rationale. I also agree that there was plenty of obvious canvassing, a litany of meritless "Keep" votes (not "!votes"), and incorrect categorization of sources as independent. However, even when you discard all those votes, we're still left with no consensus to delete. Doczilla is an experienced admin, and I'm sure he gave those canvassed, ILIKEIT-type votes the weight they deserve, namely, zero. Had he added a terse explanation of his close, it would be obvious. In my read of that AfD, the Delete views indeed carry more weight than the Keeps, but not overwhelmingly so. Is it really worth our while here to overturn this to a "No consensus", with the only practical effect being an earlier potential renomination? Unlike the appellant, I don't believe this close sets a precedent about the use of interviews as proof of notability. Most of those Keeps have no interest in our P&G, and are merely citing whatever they believe will get their pet page kept. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and relist or alternatively overturn to no consensus and allow immediate renomination (involved), as per my comment in the AfD I found the vast majority of the keep votes/!votes to be just about worthless with regards to our P&G's (with one or two exceptions). I believe that the current closes available would be 'no consensus' or 'delete', but I also believe an extra 7 days may have led to an actual consensus (given the delete !votes came late). Alternatively, explicitly allowing immediate renomination (with a 'clean' restart) may also be beneficial to finding a true P&G-based consensus either way. I don't think this should have been closed as 'keep', and in the absence of an extended closing statement, I cannot see how that conclusion was reached. Daniel (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the nom, User:Scope creep, but really, he should be advocating a single outcome. Reading through the AfD, I cannot find two sources that meeting the GNG. It’s unfortunate that someone is saying interviews don’t meet WP:SECONDARY, because that is not true. The problem with whether the sources are independent. Content sourced from the subject via interview of the subject con at be independent of the subject.
I’m leaning to “Overturn (to no consensus) and allow standard WP:RENOM in two months”. I don’t see a case for unusual urgency in solving this one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm involved, but I would have loved some sort of statement by Doczilla regarding the close, either in the close or on their talk page. I don't care what happens here, but the close does need a good explanation, which could have been provided with some talk page patience. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"