Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< April 30 May 02 >

Purge server cache

Firefox Rapid Release Model[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and there is little coverage of the subject online aside from one study. Clearfrienda 💬 23:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Content this article contains that we would have to transfer into Firefox or Firefox version history#Rapid releases before deleting this article (as it is missing in those):

  • That Firefox downloads a smaller patch/update file, rather than a full installer, since the Rapid Release Model/Firefox v5.0.
  • That this streamlines the update process for users to more easily keep their Firefox installation up-to-date.


--D4n2016 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Firefox version history#Rapid releases without merging. @D4n2016, the information you say we have to merge is unsourced. Most of the article is unsourced. superuser.com is WP:UCG and therefore not a RS. Sorry, but this wasn't a good use of ChatGPT. Jfire (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Redirect to Firefox version history#Rapid releases without merging." Are you saying you want me to redirect something without merging? I don't understand D4n2016 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings[edit]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (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 every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: 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. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 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! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Greyvensteyn[edit]

Francois Greyvensteyn (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. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying (Cody Fry album)[edit]

Flying (Cody Fry album) (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 album. The song in it, "I hear a symphony", may be notable, but is already covered in the author's page (Cody Fry). Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Cody Fry: found zero evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Flying" and "Better" are also notable songs on this album. His live performance of "Better" has 2.3M views on YouTube and "Flying" has 1M views. Most of the tracks on this album are Cody Fry's more popular songs. Billybob2002 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still doesn't mean that the album has to have its own page. The songs could still be covered in the Cody Fry article. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep merge: Beyond the success of individual songs on the album, I've found at least a handful of news stories on the album. It's marginally notable, but notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti could you provide some links? Broc (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Sorry for not including them initially! Atwood Magazine was the initial source that gave me optimism about a keep, but looking at the other sources, they're all campus newspapers. A bummer, but now I'm more keen on a merge to redirect. Thanks for following up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I had also found the Atwood magazine one, but interviews do not contribute to notability. Broc (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti The sources I added and yours does not make you think of keeping this article? The sources I added are non-campus newspapers/sources. Billybob2002 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billybob2002 thanks for adding the sources, but interviews do not contribute to the notability of an album. Broc (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is the proposal to Redirect or Merge to Cody Fry as a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: Merge to Cody Fry. Sorry for not making that abundantly obvious in my initial !vote change. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sindhuja Rajaraman (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)

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 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! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Msumarini[edit]

Msumarini (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 basically a procedural/WP:TNT nomination. This was plainly mass-created from GNS or one of its mirrors, and it has the same kinds of issues that GNIS has (see WP:GNIS for info on the latter}. We said we weren't going to do this any more, and yet here we are. For the "save all the dots" crew, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are not precise enough to compare this with maps, and searching reveals that there is a second Msumarini which apparently has been for whatever reason the subject of several international aid efforts— I say "apparently" because it's not absolutely clear which of the two places they are talking about. So potentially this would be a disambiguation, or about the other place, but at present I cannot verify whether not this is a real place or not. Kenyan info is probably better than some other places, but for example in Somalia with better location data we deleted a lot of places because there was no good evidence for their existence. And in the end it makes sense to delete the lot of these and have them created from better, reliable sources when someone comes across them. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thought I'd blitzed all of these but evidently not... MIDI (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. This is clearly a notable place, but it looks like there are up to three different villages called Msumarini and two in Kilifi county alone - one in Mtepeni ward and one in Adu ward, and then one in Hindi ward, Lamu. The vast majority are for the Mtepeni ward, though I have seen at least a couple for Adu ward (they say it is in a particular constituency.) These articles do not make a distinction between the two places and these places are both occasionally spelled Musumarini. So, yes, there should be an article here, but it should probably be a disambiguation - but there are plenty of reliable sources out there for at least the Mtepeni ward Msumarini, even though I can't confirm it necessarily passes WP:GEOLAND. Any further help would be appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 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! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton[edit]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton (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 has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 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! 23:15, 24 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! 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Ali Khan[edit]

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

I may be missing it due to language barriers, but I couldn't find sources to establish that he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep surprised see this AfD. Notable actor, may not be very popular. Article do lst several filmography. RationalPuff (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Delete mixed up with his namesake. Non-notable actor.RationalPuff (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NACTOR. The only allegation of notability is that he's related to two other actors. It's refreshing to see that Hollywood is not the only acting world with nepotism. His roles are supporting roles (NOT Lord Krishna, and buried deep in a cast of dozens) or throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 30 April 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! 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability standards Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failed WP:GNG as well as without any references Pinakpani (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform[edit]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform (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. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by other communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them. The article is basically by themselves sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammon Jeffs[edit]

Ammon Jeffs (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 likely not per WP:NBIO. References linked either don't mention the subject at all or offer very trivial mentions. A quick Google search shows little-to-no coverage. There's no reason for this article to exist on its own. Clearfrienda 💬 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NX Files[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NX Files (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 need editors' help to determine this video series' notability. Some of the references are dead, and I don't know whether the few ones that live are enough. I didn't find anything in WP:BEFORE search. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NX_Files_characters for the character list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Internet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguments to keep in the last nomination were extremely low-quality and based on various notability and logical fallacies, mostly WP:ITSIMPORTANT and various kinds of appeal to emotion and ad hominem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When searching for sources for the current AFD for the character list, I was finding absolutely nothing on this series in reliable sources. What sources are present in the article are also pretty bad - most are not even really about the series or are not reliable sources. The extremely small amount of coverage it received seventeen years ago is not enough to pass the WP:GNG and it has received absolutely no coverage or reviews in reliable sources since then. Rorshacma (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet criteria for notability. Can't find sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, terrible arguements last time, fails notability, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Sempebwa[edit]

Dennis Sempebwa (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)

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS), though. Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Woodahl[edit]

Francis Woodahl (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 not finding anything in a BEFORE search that substantiates this artist's notability. It's been tagged for notabilty for 10 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aja Aja Tayo![edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV DonaldD23 talk to me 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial hoax[edit]

Racial hoax (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)

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable concept. Any references to this term I can find ultimately lead back to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown, showing that this concept has not reached the level of notability for an article. There are a handful of notes about her work on it, but the little I can find is fairly surface level and doesn't add the sort of analysis that would be required for building a well developed, neutral article. Moreover, the vast vast majority of the article is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, attempting to attribute documented cases to this concept, despite no other authors having done so. Strip that out, and also the "Concept" material which doesn't really discuss this as a concept, and this boils down to a single source. UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aquillion, Firefangledfeathers, Gumbear, Maxxhiato, Tulzscha, and 195.180.48.123: Pinging participants in a relevant talk page thread from March 2023 to February 2024, which is preserved at the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to copy the talk to the deletion discussion's talk, as nothing has, yet, been deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / delete. A few small parts are mergable - specifically, the parts of the concept section about Russel-Brown's writings can be merged to Katheryn Russell-Brown and / or The Color of Crime (1998 book); but the rest (the bulk of the article) ought to be deleted as WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. As an academic term it's real but is mostly just by one author and is better covered on that author's page; the rest of it is mostly just a list of whenever the media has used the words "hoax" and is original research / synthesis in the sense that it connects a bunch of things to a theory when most of them lack sources making that link. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a demonstrably real social phenomenon. Perhaps rename it "List of Racial Hoaxes"? religious hoax is also merely a list of notable religious hoaxes. Not sure why we'd treat the two differently.
Also, after reviewing the AfD Discrimination nominations, need to make sure this isn't a larger effort towards viewpoint censorship. Gumbear (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Kilmore[edit]

Assumption College, Kilmore (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)

Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails GNG to meet significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not passing mentioned or verification.

Most of the sources are primary (assumption college or its founder Marist Brothers). Sources are not from Assumption College or Marist Brothers are the "Notable alumni " section where by - source -1, - source 2 and source-3 only mentioned the alumni members and not mentioned about Assumption college in length or in depth and info are part interview pieces which makes it not independent. source-4 is football club which is not reliable source. source-5 is football organization which is not a reliable source. Section on "Assumption College VCE results 2012-2020" - source -5 is from private company which makes it not reliable. Section on "Sporting achievements" which does not mention Assumption college and the the article is partially interview piece which makes it not independent.

Parhlo[edit]

Parhlo (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 and WP:GNG. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences but decided best to come to AfD instead of stripping the page. The WP:BEFORE search found interviews, quotes, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not the type of significant coverage needed to show notability. Maybe there are non-English references but I am unable to locate those from my search. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Websites, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: References mention Parhlo: "according to Parhlo.com... blah blah", or citing a Tweet from Parhlo. But they don't really say anything about the newspaper itself so I'm not sure where whoever made this acquired the text from. The only two sources I could find that do write a few lines about the newspaper is Techjuice Techjuice — but it's almost certainly not reliable because the website is spammy and hasn't even posted an article in almost a year — Dawn, which is probably reliable but it doesn't say all that much. Coop (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a paid article and simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or even WP:NCORP. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandamour[edit]

Chandamour (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. Nothing on Wikipedia library. Google gives literally a few hundred results, with barely anything useful for verification (forums, trademark listings) much less notability. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and France. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a single company's brand name cheese, not a widespread or well-known variety. It's also been nominated for deletion at fr.wiki. Reywas92Talk 01:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Benjamin[edit]

Adrian Benjamin (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:NACTOR - google search did not discover any WP:GNG coverage as well. Played a couple of minor roles back in the 60's. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alekh Kumar Parida[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alekh Kumar Parida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The sources are paid press - no reliable or significant sources. Additionally, this subject does not indicate any significance to have an article on Wikipedia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs an assessment of the reliability of the proposed sources; see Paid news in India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and seems like there are good sources that could be added Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music[edit]

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([3]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDistortion 16:59, 17 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) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loralee Larios[edit]

Loralee Larios (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 only potentially distinguishing characteristic of this early career academic is an Ecological Society of America Early Career Fellowship, which, honestly, ain't anything very remarkable. The rest of her work shows busy engagement with research and teaching but nothing that would satisfy WP:PROF. I don't see a sufficient notability basis here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums[edit]

Holderness museums (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)

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belg der Belgen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Belg der Belgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a newspaper poll (rather than similar pages on Belgian TV shows) with little to suggest that notability has been shown to the inclusion standards JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the 2011 AfD, I would say that the fact no sources have been added between then and now suggests that there aren't any to find. Hence not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A major competition of Het Nieuwsblad, the second newspaper of Belgium in readership, falling just short of Het Laatste Nieuws. Nomination is focused on references in the article, unjustifiably circumventing the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumen Shankulov[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in his native Cyrillic or in Hebrew (for his time in Israel)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quatuor Habanera[edit]

Quatuor Habanera (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 it meets WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synste Møre[edit]

Synste Møre (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:N; average local newspaper, no particular significance. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee[edit]

Robert McGee (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 usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival[edit]

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival (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 exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York[edit]

Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York (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)

Some coverage, but not enough significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lu, Xianxiu 呂賢修 (2014-01-30). "八板中樂團等 獲藝術基金殊榮" [Ba Ban Chinese Music Society and others won awards from the Art Fund]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. C4.

      The article notes: "... 紐約八板中樂團經常在華人重要活動演出，華人社區對他們並不陌生。1999年成立於皇后區新鮮草原，紐約八板中樂團是紐約少數的國樂專業團隊之一。該團由多位獨奏家組成，主要團員包括笛子繆宜民、琵琶周懿、古箏王君玲、二胡張寶利、揚琴魯靜。多次獲得此獎金支持，團員們視為重要鼓勵，對能在海外傳播傳統文化感到自豪。"

      From Google Translate: "...The New York Ba Ban Chinese Music Society often performs at important Chinese events, and the Chinese community is no stranger to them. Founded in 1999 in Fresh Prairie, Queens, the New York Ba Ban Chinese Music Society is one of the few professional Chinese music groups in New York. The troupe is composed of several soloists. The main members include Miao Yimin on the flute, Zhou Yi on the pipa, Wang Junling on the guzheng, Zhang Baoli on the erhu, and Lu Jing on the dulcimer. Having received this bonus support many times, the members regard it as important encouragement and are proud to spread traditional culture overseas."

      The article notes: "八板中樂團曾參與過三次花旗棒球場亞洲之夜，以及搖滾歌劇「西遊記」等演出，昨日還應邀在帝國大廈農曆新年點燈儀式上表演。農曆新年將至，他們近期也頻頻受邀在各地老人中心演奏。他們除了在海外保存、創造、發揚中國傳統絲竹音樂，近年並融合爵士樂，參與外百老匯演出，也曾扮演聯合國文化大使角色。"

      From Google Translate: "The Ba Ban Chinese Music Society has participated in Asia Night at Citi Baseball Stadium three times, as well as the rock opera "Journey to the West" and other performances. Yesterday, it was invited to perform at the Empire State Building's Lunar New Year lighting ceremony. The Lunar New Year is approaching, and they have been frequently invited to perform in senior centers around the country recently. In addition to preserving, creating, and promoting traditional Chinese silk and bamboo music overseas, they have also integrated jazz music in recent years, participated in off-Broadway performances, and have also served as cultural ambassadors for the United Nations."

    2. Krawitz, Alan (2004-01-18). "Saluting the Year Of The Monkey: Festive dance and music transform a library into a Chinese theater" (pages 1 and 2). Newsday. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-05-02. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The audience at a recent Ba Ban Chinese Music Society performance saw the Monkey King herald the Year of the Monkey and learned just how tricky dancing with fans and swords can be. ... Since its founding in 1999, the Ba Ban Chinese Music Society has performed extensively in New York City with shows at Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and New York University. Dedicated to the preservation, creation and presentation of Chinese folk and contemporary music, the group of accomplished artists derives its name from an ancient piece of folk music, where "Ba Ban" literally means "eight beats," which is a basic structural method of grouping notes in traditional Chinese music."

    3. "Ba Ban Chinese Music Society". The Indianapolis Star. 2004-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-02. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Ba Ban" literally means the funda "eight beats" mental structure of rhythm in traditional Chinese music. The New York-based group has been performing Chinese folk and contemporary music for five years, at locations such as Lincoln Center and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The ensemble's musicians who play bamboo and silk instruments, a hallmark of the Ching Dynasty (1636–1911). Yimin Miao, plays ditzi, a bamboo flute that dates back 9,000 years. Zhou Yi's pipa, or lute, involves more than 70 playing techniques. Both artists have played for audiences worldwide and have taken top prizes at competitions in China and the United States."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Wu, Ben (2013). "Trends in Globalization of Pipa Music". In Yu, Hui; Stock, Jonathan P. J. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Music in China and the Chinese Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 335. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190661960.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-066196-0. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Google Books.

        The book notes about Zhou Yi: "Zhou moved to the United States in 1998 and settled in New York. She was a cofounder of the Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York, which performs Chinese music regularly. She has also participated in several operatic and musical theater premieres with pipa in the orchestra."

      2. "Ba Ban Chinese Music Ensemble". Indianapolis Monthly. April 2006. p. 51. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Google Books.

        The article notes: "Ba Ban Chinese Music Ensemble Apr. 9. Since forming in 1999, this internationally renowned group has frequently performed in places such as Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Merkin Concert Hall and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as various Ivy League venues. 3 p.m. $5. Lilly Performance Hall, University of Indianapolis. 1400 E. Hanna Ave. 788-3251."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York (simplified Chinese: 纽约八板中乐团; traditional Chinese: 紐約八板中樂團) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terremoto[edit]

Terremoto (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 notability is established, there is little to no WP:SIGCOV. Mostly consists of a track list, and a personel list. Geardona (talk to me?) 19:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I recently reduced the article to a redirect, but was reverted by an Italian IP editor who added a reference to the webzine ondarock.it.[20] For further significant coverage to satisfy WP:NSONG, we would need at least one more in-depth piece in a reliable source. Also, I don't know how reliable is the webzine ondarock. Claudio Fabretti founded it in 2001, and it appears to have multiple editors and many contributors, so it looks okay. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the additional references in the corresponding Italian article at it:Terremoto (album) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added some references from the Italian article. Also, the album charted, as mentioned in La Stampa's article and the various charts referenced in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment control[edit]

Commitment control (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)

PROD'ded with reason: 'Unreferenced article with ambiguous title.' This wasn't considered clear enough, which I understand. I don't think this topic is a clear topic - 'commitment control' can mean a few things. I couldn't find sources to show this is a notable, clear concept. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find certain references to this as a concept in financial management ([21]) or a solution within Oracle's PeopleSoft product ([22], in which case it belongs in that article. Nothing else and nothing specific to the retail industry. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boll[edit]

Paul Boll (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. No medal placements at senior-level competitions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Dikhtiar[edit]

Alina Dikhtiar (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Dépouilly[edit]

Chloé Dépouilly (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Demireva[edit]

Ina Demireva (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Czarnotta[edit]

Laura Czarnotta (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater)[edit]

Ivan Dimitrov (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Dusik[edit]

Joanna Dusik (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. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singha Purohit[edit]

Singha Purohit (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 entire article( created by a sockpuppet account), appears to focus solely on a single historical event involving a person. There are no additional details available except for the person's role in saving the Daughter of the Sikh Guru Hargobind from the Mughals. This lacks sufficient notability WP:GNG, and there isn't enough context to justify creating an article. Imperial[AFCND] 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Hinduism, Sikhism, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written page and I cannot even verify texts from the sources. Fails notability guidelines and the maybe sourced contribution does not aid in the verifiable presentation of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: WP:G5. Speedy deletion should not have been declined. The SPI appears to rule that this account was likely unrelated, which might have caused the confusion. However, the real reason this account was later blocked can be found here. Aintabli (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Flühmann[edit]

Myriam Flühmann (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dutertre[edit]

Laura Dutertre (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Findlay[edit]

Terra Findlay (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) (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)

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

  1. Link - Primary Source
  2. Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
  3. Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
  4. Link Primary source
  5. Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
  6. Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
  7. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  8. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  9. Link - Primary source
  10. Link - Primary source
  11. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
  12. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
  13. Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (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)

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

  1. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
  2. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
  3. Link - Primary source
  4. Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
  5. British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
  6. Link - Primary source
  7. Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
  8. Link - Primary source
  9. Link - Primary source
  10. Link - Primary source
  11. Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yediel Canton[edit]

Yediel Canton (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Bohren[edit]

Raphaël Bohren (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă[edit]

Roxana Boamfă (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie-Anne Blazek[edit]

Lucie-Anne Blazek (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Tomaszewski[edit]

Michał Tomaszewski (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bińczyk[edit]

Maria Bińczyk (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Biktagirova[edit]

Lilia Biktagirova (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

György Beck[edit]

György Beck (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. A silver or bronze medal at the national championships do not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Siebe[edit]

Mason Siebe (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 pass WP:GNG or anywhere near WP:NHOCKEY. Played junior amateur hockey without honors and does not have any coverage. Kline • talk • contribs 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Young-eun (figure skater)[edit]

Choi Young-eun (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. A bronze medal at the national championships does not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Jellett (priest)[edit]

Henry Jellett (priest) (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 obvious notability, apart from being Dean of a Cathedral. Unsure if that position would convey notability alone. Chumpih t 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Márquez[edit]

Harry Márquez (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 kind of confused by this article. The only reference here it seems to not include his name and I can't find anything about this guy when I look him up. No article on es wiki either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman Crossing, Ohio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. Previously deleted via PROD, restored following RFUD with the justification Expired PROD says it was tagged as a nn railroad crossing and failed WP:GEOLAND. It's actually an unincorporated community, and as such per GEOLAND is actually supposed to be presumed notable. This is erroneous, however, as the sole source for the article is a GNIS listing, and GEOLAND specifies that GNIS listings do not satisfy its criterion on their own and are unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage other than GNIS mirrors searching on Google Scholar and Google Books. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was called Deadman Crossing as early as 1906, but was always just a literal railroad crossing, with no buildings or anything else suggesting a community: [23]. Never mentioned in a history of Ross County: [24]. Besides GNIS, other mentions could be found but these were all trivial and dealt with local geology, mentioning it as a site but never as a community. Another nonexistent place conjured out of thin air by GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Swap AI[edit]

Quantum Swap AI (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, independent coverage in WP:reliable sources in either the article already or found with searches. Only a few passing mentions in articles about the single being released. No suitable redirect target that I can see. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, and Organizations. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sources present are just passing mentions. Promotional in tone as well, feels more like a press release than an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Sources available are about a music release and offer passing mentions if any of the cryptocurrency, no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS found elsewhere. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a pretty bizarre article, with sources that are about Ming Luanli's fledgling music career (itself non-notable) and those sources only briefly mention Quantum Swap AI as an attempted cross-promotion. This article is most likely another attempt of the same. The cryptocurrency itself has no reliable media coverage or analysis in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bukoff[edit]

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

I can't find any sources on this guy anywhere. There are a few papers but they have few citations and he's hardly ever first or last author. WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are both failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Michigan. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but the article does not even assert academic notability; it appears to be trying to claim that he is notable as a fine artist through having multiple works in notable collections. Fluxus is notable (and his connection to the movement can be documented [25]) but that does not give him inherited notability and he is not even mentioned on the Fluxus article. I'm not convinced that having copies of a newsletter kept in an academic library (see link above) is really the sort of thing that counts towards WP:ARTIST #4d, the way having individual paintings in major museums would count. He does have artworks, of a scale that would definitely count to #4d if they were in major museums [26] but the Coon Rapids Sculpture Park is not a major museum. If we could find similarly significant individual works by the subject, in multiple notable and bluelinked museums, I would likely have a different opinion, but my searches did not turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population[edit]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population (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 has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,
ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).
    Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct issues here.
  1. On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
  2. On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).
Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [27] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deugro[edit]

Deugro (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)

So I created this page back in 2019, thinking that this company, being big, should have a WP page. However, since then, it has been tagged for notability issues. It might be best to remove it, as if a German company doesn't have an article on German WP, it likely isn't worth having on English WP at all. Others might perceive it as a paid article, which it is not. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

Leinster Chess Leagues (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 Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like Template:MicrobiologyMarcus? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.
    I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [28] [29], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:
  • Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
  • Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
  • Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
  • Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.
My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jord Engineers India[edit]

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

This company article is missing a reliable source to establish notability. The only reference is a dead link. After searching, found social media and sales websites, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this company. Article was created by a new user on 11 July 2012, their only contribution to Wikipedia. Was PROD April 22, 2024; contested on April 27. Also, "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7)" on 15:24, 11 July 2012. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Polish Rally Championship[edit]

2023 Polish Rally Championship (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 evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Possibly with a bit of "wp:not" thrown in for being just stats. I would like to request a thorough / longer review of this because it is an example of many sitting in the que that I've been avoiding reviewing and this might help provide guidance. "Stats only" sources for a "stats only" article. (although this is at the "better end" of that spectrum because the stats has more info than just who won) And on a topic which is not given presumed notability by the SNG. Has no GNG sources. Unable to find GNG sources for the topic, mostly likely because they are unlikely to exist. Of course non-GNG coverage of events within the topic exists, but that misses by two criteria (not about the topic of the article and not GNG depth). I recently posted at project sports to try to learn the lay of the land of opinion on these (i.e. whether to "bend the wp:notability rules on these) and it seems that the answer is not.

The only prose content (2 sentences) is what is already contained at the higher level Polish Rally Championship article. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abisola Kola-Daisi[edit]

Abisola Kola-Daisi (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 Before search does not bring up much to establish notability. Princess of Ara 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth League (Scotland)[edit]

National Youth League (Scotland) (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)

Unreferenced stub article, which I can not seem to find any significant coverage of. Mn1548 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (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 is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Gokieli[edit]

Jemal Gokieli (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)

For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. If someone could bring satisfactory sources, it would be a fair one. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Group Services[edit]

M Group Services (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)

M&A activity appears to be pretty much the totality of the available sourcing, and that is excluded from establishing notability per WP:ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher (band)[edit]

Kosher (band) (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 wasn't able to find much coverage. The band has an AllMusic biography, and this really short article in the Pitch. toweli (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid[edit]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid (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)

Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",[1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."[2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.
    AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.
    What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.
    Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.
    You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.
    I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point. SounderBruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACSI College-Iloilo[edit]

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

Subject's notability is questionable. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACSI College[edit]

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

Subject's notability is questionable. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hounslea[edit]

Bill Hounslea (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)

He fails GNG. A newspapers.com search found nothing but mentions in match reports and the hysterical story about the time he ran on the pitch in full kit wearing a tie. Dougal18 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, very little to find, clearly fails the notability criteria. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballmer Peak[edit]

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

Not notable - the article is a 3 sentence stub about a joke from an xkcd comic, with two of the three sources used being from xkcd itself and the xkcd wiki. Doing a google search, it appears that there's little else about the topic besides the Observer article, outside of blog posts and other self-published sources. — Chevvin 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Distillery using this name, nothing for the web comic/meme thing that this article is about. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section in Xkcd due to being notable enough for one source. Not notable enough for an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Xkcd article for reasons stated above: that multiple sources are used suggests the topic is notable enough for inclusion. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to Strong Keep after the previously made points. As said before, the sources meet the notability guidelines but the topic would be difficult to smoothly integrate into the Xkcd article. RyanAl6 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballmer Peak is not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Normally redirects should be mentioned at the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ballmer Peak is a humorous and intentionally incorrect claim contradicting the Alcohol-related brain damage page. It makes no sense as a redirect to there. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – There's nothing here, just a single study and report that uses the term. Should not be merged into xkcd either, that article already struggles with the many things that grew out of xkcd over the years. (The Observer article technically doesn't even really mention the webcomic btw). This topic probably doesn't meet medical inclusion criteria; it's quite serious to tell people (based on just a single study) that drinking alcohol can make you productive. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study. Way over our inclusion guideline. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hobit: That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet WP:MEDRS... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related. The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea. And we prove notability by sources. But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:MEDRES isn't relevant because this is not a medical article. Per the lead sentence: "The Ballmer Peak is a humorous concept..." Dan Bloch (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why are we citing scientific studies? The Observer article seems to be presenting fairly direct advice: drinking alcohol can in fact increase your productivity. I recognize that this is humorous, but to me that makes it a scarier vector for misinformation. "We wouldn't have an article on this if it wasn't funny" would be a really bad sign. For the record, however, I don't quite know and also want to defer to someone with more experience in that field. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: leaning delete. I don't think there's any argument that the above sources qualify this for GNG through SIRS. Let's stick to our scope and leave this to urban dictionary and the like. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Draken Bowser: Could you clarify how they don't meet SIRS? The books are are fairly short (a paragraph) but define the term with a bit of history so may well be significant. The other parts are clearly met as far as I can see. The news articles meet all 3. The research papers could be argued to be primary I guess, but "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event". They are close to *an* event (their research) but are secondary in this context. Basically asking for you to document why you think GNG isn't met when we have 7 sources listed. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I consider it insufficient. Unless ctrl+f fails me it's not mentioned in all of the sources, and included in one merely as an efn. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The bar is "multiple". It is mentioned in all but one. And that one is referenced by 2 of the others as being about this topic. Two of the sources are solely on the topic (with the name). Two (the papers) cover the notion in detail but only one references it by name. The three books all discuss it by name. Hobit (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's nowhere near in-depth. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question – If merged into xkcd, what would the addition looks like. Would it be included in the "Academic research" section and say something like "A hypoethsized phenomenon linking alcohol consumption and productivity is named after an xkcd joke, the "Ballmer Peak""? Would such an addition be appropriate? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could go under the "Inspired Activities" section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see lots of opinions but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Short-term productivity changes could be covered at Short-term effects of alcohol consumption but aren't explicitly. If they were, then that could be a merge/expansion target, where this term/concept could be referenced. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for Merge/Redirect as a viable ATD, but no consensus as to a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawpool[edit]

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

Redirect to Thurstaston, not notable stub. Orange sticker (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pope, Tennessee[edit]

Pope, Tennessee (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, as far as I can tell, fails WP:NPLACE. I couldn't find any other mentions of the place online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found Quite a Bit of Sources Showing that this is infact a community, it has a Chapel, a Cemetary, & a Post Office. It Is also shown on many maps.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding those sources. Still, as far as I can tell, none of those provide WP:SIGCOV of the location. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WP:GEOLAND. Central and Adams (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please elaborate because GEOLAND says it ison a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quoting the part of GEOLAND for not-legally-recognized places. This place is legally recognized, being listed in the USGS GNIS, so per the first GEOLAND criterion it's presumed notable, nothing about case-by-case consideration. Central and Adams (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false, the GNIS is just a database of names that have appeared on maps. Consensus has found that it is not legal recognition and does not establish notability for a stand-alone article. Also see WP:GNIS. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also on USGS maps and it has a fire department. This is being legally recognized.Central and Adams (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't legal recognition either, the USGS map just list it because it's in GNIS. GNIS is deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community. Plenty of places that are not legally recognized have fire departments, so no on that too. James.folsom (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal recognition means that a government acknowledges that it exists. Only governments create fire departments. The act of creating a fire department is legal recognition. Central and Adams (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are utterly incorrect on that point. In fact, community organized volunteer fire departments came first. Depending on the laws of the area, thee is governmental regulation and coordination, but they do not necessarily create fire departments. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are volunteer fire departments but they are sanctioned and authorized by government. There's no such thing as a non government-authorized fire department. This must be the case because fire departments need powers beyond those of private citizens, e.g. to break into houses. Such powers can only be granted by government. And if a fire department is authorized for a place by government then clearly the government recognizes the existence of that place. Central and Adams (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well I don't know what it is. It's old though. All the sources for this are not very reliable, and I've found nothing that describes it.James.folsom (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a legally recognized community, I don't know why this was even nominated in the first place. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Keep - Per the Sources I Listed Above, and per the statement made by @Central and Adams. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist)[edit]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist) (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)

Given this article has had verification issues for nearly 12 years, and the fact that none of the sources satisfy WP:GNG mostly because they either lack WP:DEPTH or aren't independent. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sister (band)[edit]

Hello Sister (band) (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)

Band does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osirica[edit]

Osirica (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)

Purported masonic order that is briefly mentioned in some afrocentric books from George G. M. James, Asa Hilliard and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'. Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one. The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars. This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Singh Arha[edit]

Abhimanyu Singh Arha (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 fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Khan (actor)[edit]

Inayat Khan (actor) (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 BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. 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 Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Hafeez[edit]

Khalid Hafeez (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 fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS while the rest are merely namechecks. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO[edit]

XPANCEO (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)

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

  1. Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
  2. Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
  3. Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
  4. Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
  5. Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
  6. Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
  7. Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
  8. Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
  9. Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Khan (Pakistani singer)[edit]

Natasha Khan (Pakistani singer) (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 fulfill the criteria WP:MUSICBIO nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS while the rest are merely namechecks. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York Housing Association[edit]

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

York Housing Association no longer exists and it appears that it was only ever one of many housing associations serving the Yorkshire area. It merged in 2022 with Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association to form 54North - now (May 2024)a subsidiary of Karbon Homes (https://54northhomes.co.uk/about-us/). The page would need completely rewritten - but probably better (if it proved notable) to create a new page based on Karbon Homes. Newhaven lad (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab Shah[edit]

Wahab Shah (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 fulfill the criteria WP:ARTIST nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward T. Jackson[edit]

Edward T. Jackson (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 academic, without a lasting claim to relevance for the general public. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Mashwani[edit]

Azhar Mashwani (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 evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Asada[edit]

Mai Asada (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. I'm not sure she qualifies as notable. Not to be confused with her younger sister, Mao Asada, who was an exceptionally successful skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romaisa Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, etc. Merely being in a film or TV series does not make one Inherently notable. Created by a sockpuppet —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Aalam[edit]

Umer Aalam (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. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherently notable. Previously deleted under G5. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mariette[edit]

Bernard Mariette (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 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But how many of these are WP:SIGCOV? I see a number of routine company announcements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 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) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashguard[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF which would be difficult to expand and source properly. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:33, 24 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) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer on Canadian television[edit]

Soccer on Canadian television (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. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Of the sources, they are nothing but news announcements or guides, three of those are primaries and none of them assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment (TV program)[edit]

Assignment (TV program) (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)

Tagged for lack of references since 2017. No good hits on GBooks, GNews and Gsearch. GNews Archives has mentions of the program but it is because Teodoro Locsin Jr., one of its hosts, was running for congress. Weak Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ABS-CBN#Current_affairs as assignment is quite a common title. --Lenticel (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Alt[edit]

Matt Alt (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. The only source that meets GNG criteria is the article from The Japan Times. Normally, I would probably draftify, but the article has already been accepted previously at AfC by User:14 novembre. Most of what I found online was not independent of the subject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambreen Salahuddin[edit]

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

This appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO created by a SPA Sar-e-dasht-e-gumaan (talk · contribs), likely the subject themselves, given the similarity between the username and one of their book titles. Having said that, the BLP fails to meet the WP:AUTHOR as the the subject's works do not seem to be noteworthy enough. The subject also clearly fails to meet basic WP:GNG. Therefore, this shamelessly written promo BLP should be thrashed. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jormungandr (roller coaster)[edit]

Jormungandr (roller coaster) (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)

Probably either delete, or merge to Drayton Manor Resort due to lack of SIGCOV. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what kind of improvements would need to be made? Sorry this is my first page so not 100% sure if its ok but tried to mimic layouts and information of other rides. Thanks Maddisongiselle (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maddisongiselle: The most important thing is finding more coverage of the coaster in reliable published sources. Do you know of stories about Jormungandr (or Buffalo Coaster) in newspapers, books, magazines or other web sources? Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did good work. Please read what @Toughpigs noted. Cleo Cooper (talk) 23:28, 24 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! 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque trinquete[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. There are a number of unref claims on the page which could be removed per WP:V but I'm also unclear whether this is a duplicate page with content from another or something else altogether. There are WP pages in other languages but they don't have many refs and do not clear up the confusion. It feels like it could perhaps be merged with Basque pelota but I'm confused so this might not be appropriate for reasons I do not fully understand JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this page is deleted, something will also have to be done with the Trinquete disambiguation page, which has only this entry and Valencian trinquet. Valencian trinquet also does not cite any sources, so could potentially fail notability as well. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:53, 17 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) 06:25, 24 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! 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to a new chapter in Basque pelota. Sources exist on the web, so the article could probably be kept, but I agree that this would make more sense as a chapter in the parent article, which already has sections on the equipment used in the sport, so why not also on the court. You may like to note that notability does not rest on whatever citations have or have not been put in an article, but on what exists in the world outside. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Enough RS to satisfy GNG. For instance [52], [53]. This last is a doctoral thesis entirely about the Basque ball game which includes extensive discussion of the trinquete, including comparisons and contrasts with the fronton.Central and Adams (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
    • Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
    • Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
    • Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
    • Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
    • Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
    • The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
    – Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 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! 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Bathurst[edit]

Len Bathurst (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:HOAX. No player with the surname Bathurst has played in the English Football League since the Second World War (verified via leading stats sites such as Soccerbase and Soccerway, the 2015 edition of the book listed under refs, and a similar player records book published in the 1980s). I also own the Rothmans Football Yearbooks for most of the seasons during his supposed career and none of them show a player of this name playing for the teams he was supposedly a regular with at the time. If this man does exist, he definitely didn't play professional football. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems to have been created by one person, an account with one edit! Not so promising there. We can also ask SmartVandelay who knows about Northampton if a player like this name ever played for them. But if it is indeed a hoax then delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom, no evidence of this player existing. The one thing you can find online about him was almost certainly taken from Wikipedia. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - If it is a hoax, it's one of the oldest extant ones on the platform, having existed for 12 and a half years. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once it's deleted, I will add it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No mention of Bathurst in Crisp's Crewe Alexandra Match by Match (and I don't recall anyone by that name playing for the Alex in the 1980s). Paul W (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Thanks for everyone's work, all evidence points to this being a hoax. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Due to lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has two interwikis in completely different languages. How to notify them? Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granny (video game series)[edit]

Granny (video game series) (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)

Unfortunately non-notable as per WP:GNG on the basis of the lack of reliable sourcing and in-depth reviews. Know Your Meme and WikiHow are pretty cut and dry WP:USERG. A WP:BEFORE finds some brief analysis of a gameplay mechanic in the game in Game Rant [54] and some even briefer listicle-type assessments of the game in TheGamer [55] and Sportskeeda [56]. But I think this is well below the level of coverage needed as a whole if using the WP:THREE method. There isn't good guidance on notability for a series, but if there was one or two reviews out there for the other games, I would argue that a series such as this is not notable where (1) there's no in-depth coverage of the series as a whole body of work; and (2) none of the individual works in the series seem they would be independently notable. At any rate, open to views. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanako Maeda[edit]

Kanako Maeda (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)

Sources exist, but not enough significance. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Lukas[edit]

John Lukas (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 ahs been in CAT:NN for over 14 years. I thought it was borderline, but I couldn't find enough coverage or significance to show he meets WPBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zing Pop Culture[edit]

Zing Pop Culture (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 the sources are press releases or routine. A search in google news finds much the same. Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability with no sources to back up corporate claims. -Samoht27 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP, no inherent or inherited notability. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Montague[edit]

Willie Montague (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 congressional candidate. No plausible claim to notability, no coverage outside of routine campaign coverage from minor outlets. One of the most cut-and-dry cases I've ever seen. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per nom, which I hate to use as a rationale, but there's really no significant coverage of this losing candidate. Central and Adams (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dard (album)[edit]

Dard (album) (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 establish notability. The references in the article are either to primary sources or to press releases disguised as news coverage. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more suitable sources to include. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British International School of Kuala Lumpur[edit]

British International School of Kuala Lumpur (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 AfDed in 2014 and closed as no consensus per a part WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which subsequently was repealed in 2017. Since the previous nom, no new sources have come to light. Probably best if we redirect to Nord Anglia Education. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:42, 24 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! 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ekaterina Zaikina (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 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 04:02, 24 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! 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Xanatos[edit]

David Xanatos (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. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [57]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavyly", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDGL-LD[edit]

KDGL-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) 04:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apacer[edit]

Apacer (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)

Previously deleted and salted as Apacer Technology Inc. No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 03:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ng, Celeste See-Pui; Chang, Pei-Chann (2009). "Exploring the Links between Competitive Advantage and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Upgrade Decision: A Case Study Approach". In Chou, Shuo-Yan; Trappey, Amy; Pokojski, Jerzy; Smith, Shana (eds.). Global Perspective for Competitive Enterprise, Economy and Ecology: Proceedings of the 16th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. London: Springer-Verlag. p. 185. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-762-2_17. ISBN 978-1-84882-761-5. Retrieved 2024-04-28 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Apacer was founded in April 1997. The capital is over ten hundred million US dollars with approximately 500 staff members. The business volume is NTD120 millions in year 2003 and reached NTD140 million in 2004. The head-quarter is situated at the Nankang Software Park, Taipei. The firm currently has offices in USA, Netherlands, France, Tokyo, Middle East, India, Sydney, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Apacer is a manufacturing company that develops dynamic RAM (DRAM). Apacer offers various types of sale services to its clients based on the size of the order and the size of the client's company."

    2. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)". EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

      The company summary of the report notes: "Apacer Technology Inc. was founded in 1997 and, from its earliest stage, positioned itself to be an agile supplier of DRAM whose primary operations focused on memory modules. The company provides standard DRAM memory modules, which include 128 megabyte (MB), 256MB, 512 MB, 1 gigabyte (GB), 2GB, 4GB and 8GB double data rate (DDR) I, DDR II and DDR III products; DRAM memory modules, which are applied in industrial computers, servers, printers, network products, routers and memory modules; flash memory cards, flash memory drives, multimedia players and digital peripheral products, including moving picture experts group layer-3 audio (MP3) players, flash drives, card readers, solid hard disks, universal serial bus (USB) hubs and USB chargers, among others, as well as embedded flash memory modules. Reliant upon the semiconductor’s complete vertical integration of the memory modules' technical capabilities with its professional marketing services, Apacer successfully created its own global brand and had become the world’s fourth largest memory module manufacturer by 1999. Since its establishment it has set up subsidiaries in the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Mainland of China, India etc."

    3. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)" [宇瞻科技股份有限公司 (中国台湾地区)] (in Chinese). EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

      The company summary of the report notes: "1997年4月16日，成立企基科技股份有限公司，设立公司于台北市，资本额新台币10,000,000元，为宏基集团转投资公司，提供记忆体模组产品之专业制造商。同年7月，公司地址迁移至台北县汐止市，并更名为宇瞻科技股份有限公司。10月，成立宇瞻美国子公司。1998年1月，龙潭厂区设立。同年2月，成立欧洲子公司。4月，领先推出符合IntelPC100规格的记忆体模组。"

      From Google Translate: "On April 16, 1997, Apacer Technology Inc. was established in Taipei City with a capital of NT$10,000,000. It is a company invested by Acer Group and provides a professional manufacturer of memory module products. In July of the same year, the company's address was moved to Xizhi City, Taipei County, and its name was changed to Apacer Technology Co., Ltd. In October, Apacer's US subsidiary was established. In January 1998, Longtan factory was established. In February of the same year, a European subsidiary was established. In April, it took the lead in launching memory modules that meet Intel PC100 specifications."

    4. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (1998-12-04). "宇瞻科技擦亮APACER招牌 挾宏碁集團豐富資源 在記憶體模組領域快速崛起" [Apacer Technology Polishes Apacer Brand. Leveraging Acer Group's rich resources to rapidly rise in the field of memory modules.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 54.

      The review notes: "宏碁半導體集團旗下一支專業記憶體模組供應商一宇瞻科技公司，成立才一年半，漸露鋒芒。預期今年營業額將突破2．5億美元，已躍升全球前十大記憶體模組製造商；明年可望營收4億美元，前進全球前五大廠名列，擦亮自有品牌「Apacer」招牌。... 隨著營運版圖的擴大，一年半來宇瞻科技公司已由早期十多人組，增加到現在100多人公司，並在今年7月增設龍潭廠房且在美國、荷蘭都設有分公司，使Apacer記憶體模組新產品研發、生產及行銷能充份掌握。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology, a professional memory module supplier under the Acer Semiconductor Group, has only been established for a year and a half and is gradually showing its talents. Revenue this year is expected to exceed US$250 million, making it one of the top ten memory module manufacturers in the world. Next year, revenue is expected to reach US$400 million, ranking among the top five manufacturers in the world, and polishing its own brand "Apacer" brand. ... With the expansion of its operating territory, in the past year and a half, Apacer Technology has grown from a team of more than ten people in the early days to more than 100 people now. In July this year, it added a Longtan factory and has branches in the United States and the Netherlands. Apacer memory module new product development, production and marketing can be fully grasped."

    5. Cao, Zhengfen 曹正芬 (2000-01-07). "宇瞻搶攻快閃記憶體卡商機 網路通訊設備需求增加 今年業績目標5,000萬美元" [Apacer seizes flash memory card business opportunities. Demand for network communication equipment increases; this year's performance target is US$50 million]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.

      The article notes: "宏碁集團轉投資公司宇瞻科技跨足快閃記憶體卡領域，由於網路、通訊設備需求增加，宇瞻將快閃記憶體卡今年業績目標訂為5,000萬美元。 ... 宇瞻為國內記憶體模組廠商，去年宣布跨入快閃記憶體卡領域，由宇瞻向業者購買快閃記憶體，自行組裝快閃記憶體卡。宇瞻當初決定跨足快閃記憶體卡，起意在於供應宏碁集團專用電腦 (XC)之需。"

      From Google Translate: "Acer Group's investment company Apacer Technology has entered the field of flash memory cards. Due to the increase in demand for network and communication equipment, Apacer has set a flash memory card performance target of US$50 million this year. ... Apacer is a domestic memory module manufacturer. Last year, it announced that it would enter the field of flash memory cards. Apacer will purchase flash memory from industry players and assemble the flash memory cards itself. Apacer originally decided to branch out into flash memory cards with the intention of supplying the Acer Group's dedicated computers (XC)."

    6. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (2001-03-08). "宇瞻與聯測簽合作契約" [Apacer signs cooperation contract with Lianchai]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 26.

      The article notes: "全球第四大記憶體模組大廠宇瞻科技 (Apacer) 公司昨（7）日宣佈與聯測公司簽訂合作契約 ..."

      From Google Translate: "Apacer, the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer, announced yesterday (7th) that it had signed a cooperation contract with Lianchai ..."

    7. Lin, Maoren 林茂仁 (2004-01-27). "《《數位發燒商品》》 宇瞻隨身燒 精彩畫面不錯過" ["Digital Fever Products" Apacer burns with you, don’t miss the wonderful pictures]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.

      The article notes: "宇瞻的「隨身燒CP200」及「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」兩款數位儲存產品，日前並雙雙獲得第十二屆「台灣精品獎」殊榮，其中「隨身燒CP200」更晉級「國家產品形象獎」，挑戰國家評鑑最高榮譽「國家產品金質獎」。宇瞻「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」為全球首創相容於MemoryStick及Memory Stick Pro記憶卡的MP3隨身碟，目標鎖定全球超過四千萬人的Memory Stick記憶卡使用者。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer's two digital storage products, "Portable Burner CP200" and "Audio Steno MS400 Flash Drive", recently both won the 12th "Taiwan Excellence Award". Among them, "Portable Burner CP200" was even promoted to the "National Product Image Award" , challenging the "National Product Gold Award", the highest honor in national evaluation. Apacer's "Audio Steno MS400 flash drive" is the world's first MP3 flash drive compatible with MemoryStick and Memory Stick Pro memory cards, targeting more than 40 million Memory Stick memory card users around the world."

    8. Peng, Zihao 彭子豪 (2006-05-18). "宇瞻科技Tango系列 隨身碟耍時尚" [Apacer Technology Tango series flash drive is fashionable]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. E3.

      The article notes: "許久沒推出新作的記憶體模組大廠－宇瞻科技（Apacer）日前推出「Tango」隨身碟系列，受到該公司過去於產品設計上具有不錯的口碑，這次推出的Tango系列在產品外觀上，確實和市場相關產品不同，賣相不差。「Tango」的外觀游走在科技與時尚的邊界，並融合資訊傳輸便利和流行時尚元素，外型硬挺陽剛外，更內建Tango軟體技術，透過「同步資料」的技術，"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer, a major memory module manufacturer that has not launched a new product for a long time, has recently launched the "Tango" flash drive series. Due to the company's good reputation for product design in the past, the Tango series launched this time has a unique appearance in terms of product appearance. It is indeed different from related products in the market, and the appearance is not bad. The appearance of "Tango" walks on the boundary between technology and fashion, and integrates information transmission convenience and popular fashion elements. It has a tough and masculine appearance, and it also has built-in Tango software technology. Through the "synchronization data" technology,"

    9. Xu, Mujun 徐睦鈞 (2010-12-28). "宇瞻 增加高毛利產品" [Apacer adds high-margin products]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B3.

      The article notes: "準上市記憶體模組股宇瞻科技 (8271)將在明天以每股21元掛牌 ... 宇瞻目前生產DRAM模組的標準型產品營收占70%，藉由徹底落實數字管理，即便在近年DRAM報價數度走弱下，獲利表現仍優於同業；而占營收比重30%的加值型產品毛利率貢獻度較高，未來將持續專注在工業用SSD市場以及數位家庭市場，預計明年加值型事業的營收比重將拉高到40%以上。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology (8271), a quasi-listed memory module stock, will be listed tomorrow at 21 yuan per share. ... Apacer currently produces 70% of its revenue from standard products of DRAM modules. By thoroughly implementing digital management, its profit performance is still better than that of its peers even when DRAM quotations have weakened several times in recent years; while Apacer accounts for 30% of its revenue. Value-added products have a high contribution to gross profit margin. In the future, they will continue to focus on the industrial SSD market and the digital home market. It is expected that the revenue proportion of value-added businesses will increase to more than 40% next year."

    10. Zhou, Pinjun 周品均 (2010-12-29). "宇宇瞻上市 漲幅衝3成 今天好熱鬧 鑫永銓櫃轉市漲0.15元 弘憶新上市漲0.1元" [Apacer goes public, gains 30%. It's so lively today. Xinyongquan's new listing rose 0.15 yuan and Hongyi's new listing rose 0.1 yuan.]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.

      The article notes: "宇瞻前11月營收118.98億元，前3季稅後淨利2.92億元，每股盈餘(EPS)2.62元，雖然今年第四季動態隨機存取記憶體市況不佳，但宇瞻在毛利較高的加值型產品比重拉升的情況下，法人預期，今年EPS有望挑戰3元水準。... 宇瞻今上市 開盤23.05元 最高27.9元 最低23元 成交6460張"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer's revenue in the first November was 11.898 billion yuan, its net profit after tax in the first three quarters was 292 million yuan, and its earnings per share (EPS) was 2.62 yuan. Although the DRAM market conditions were not good in the fourth quarter of this year, Apacer's gross profit was higher With the proportion of value-added products increasing, the legal person expects that this year's EPS is expected to challenge the 3 yuan level. ... Apacer went public today. The opening price was 23.05 yuan, the highest was 27.9 yuan, the lowest was 23 yuan, and 6,460 contracts were traded."

    11. Chen, Fuxia 陳復霞 (2017-05-19). "宇瞻科技成立20周年奠基工控第一" [Apacer Technology's 20th Anniversary, Laying the Foundation for the First Place in Industrial Control]. CTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

      The article notes: "宇瞻科技(Apacer)歡慶成立20周年。宇瞻科技1997年創立，以持續打造最佳品質與效能兼具的創新領導產品，屢獲世界級肯定。自2012年起，連續四年蟬聯Gartner評比全球第一工業用固態硬碟供應商，奠基工控市場的領先地位。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer celebrates its 20th anniversary. Founded in 1997, Apacer Technology continues to create innovative and leading products with the best quality and performance, and has repeatedly won world-class recognition. Since 2012, it has been ranked as the world's No. 1 industrial solid-state drive supplier by Gartner for four consecutive years, establishing its leading position in the industrial control market."

    12. Sun, Yuliang 孙玉亮 (2013-01-04). "宇瞻张家騉:服务+创新 深挖高利润行业" [Apacer Zhang Jiaqing: Service + Innovation to dig deep into high-profit industries]. ZOL [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

      The article notes: "Apacer宇瞻科技成立于1997年，初期公司以DRAM模组的专业供货商为定位，将经营聚焦在「记忆存储」。凭着对半导体垂直整合的完整内存模组技术能力与专业营销业务，成功在全球打出Apacer自有品牌，并于1999年成为全球第四大内存模组厂商。企业总部位于中国台湾，在上海设有宇瞻电子（上海）有限公司。此外在美国、欧洲、日本、印度等地设有分公司。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997. In the early days, the company positioned itself as a professional supplier of DRAM modules and focused its business on "memory storage." With its complete memory module technology capabilities and professional marketing business in vertically integrating semiconductors, Apacer successfully launched its own brand around the world and became the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer in 1999 . The company is headquartered in Taiwan, China, and has Apacer Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in Shanghai. In addition, it has branches in the United States, Europe, Japan, India and other places."

    13. Zhang, Xuhong 張旭宏 (2010-10-15). "台股宇瞻科技通過上市審議 股價2天漲逾1成 全年營收上看130億元" [Apacer Technology passes listing review, stock price rises by more than 10% in 2 days, annual revenue reaches 13 billion yuan]. 頭條新聞 [cnYES] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

      The article notes: "宇瞻科技成立於1997年，主要從事記憶體模組製造銷售，產品包含記憶體模組(DRAM Module)、快閃記憶體相關產品(如快閃記憶儲存卡、快閃碟、消費性儲存控制器、嵌入式快閃記憶體模組、可摧式多媒體儲存裝置)、動態隨機存取記憶體、快閃記憶體等，... 全球第七大DRAM Module廠，2009年市佔率約4.4%，市場結構為內銷佔28%、亞洲佔34%、歐洲佔24%、美洲14%。"

      From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997 and is mainly engaged in the manufacturing and sales of memory modules. Its products include DRAM Modules, flash memory related products (such as flash memory cards, flash disks, and consumer storage controllers). , embedded flash memory modules, destructible multimedia storage devices), dynamic random access memory, flash memory, etc., ... Currently, the company is the seventh largest DRAM Module manufacturer in the world, with a market share of approximately 4.4% in 2009. The market structure is domestic sales accounting for 28%, Asia 34%, Europe 24%, and Americas 14%."

    14. Product reviews:
      1. Chuenprasaeng, Paisal (2003-09-07). "pacer Audio steno Bp300: Apace sets the pace for tunes". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

        The review notes: "Apacer Audio Steno BP300 is a beautifully designed three-in-one device capable of playing digital music, recording and serving as a mobile hard disk. Despite all these features, it has a reasonable price of only Bt4,000."

      2. Yap, Nigel (2002-04-11). "Portable storage media for PCs and notebooks". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.

        The review notes: "All in all, the Apacer Handy Drive is a useful device to have around, especially if you are tired of floppy drives. It is portable, small, and can hold quite a a good deal of data. This is especially so if you are to purchase the one-gigabyte (GB) version of the Apacer Handy Drive which will cost RM3,000. The setback is when you want to transfer files to machines running on Windows 98 and below as you would need to have the driver files."

      3. "The road warrior's CD writer continues to grow apace: Slow down". British Journal of Photography. Vol. 150, no. 7432. 2003-06-04. p. 11. ProQuest 1673730224.

        The review notes: "As things stand, with a price tag of just under £200 (before VAT) the Apacer is attractively positioned, but not exceptionally so. It is therefore significant to report that the drive comes with its own padded case, which is a definite bonus. Although a CompactFlash card was mentioned above, the drive has a six-type card reader that also accepts MMC/SD, Memory Stick, ...One observation that I had not come across until I tried the Apacer was the incompatibility that appears to exist between older CD writers and the latest high speed discs, but not vice versa. So whereas my own La Cie drive, which has an 18x maximum write speed, was uncomfortable with 48x TDK discs, the Apacer, despite only being able to write at up to 24x, was perfectly contented."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Apacer (Chinese: 宇瞻科技股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to get a second (or third or fourth) opinion on these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Woman (song)[edit]

Blind Woman (song) (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 establish notability. The references in the article appear to be either primary sources or cannot be considered reliable due to the lack of editorial oversight within their staff. A quick check before the nomination showed no better sources that could be included, nor any other indicators of notability like a chart appearance. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zarah: Found no coverage myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Anderton[edit]

Sylvan Anderton (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)

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    are those football cards? ltbdl (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...yes? GiantSnowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    football cards aren't reliable sources ltbdl (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's crazy ltbdl (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltbdl (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. GiantSnowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good research! GiantSnowman 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you tell us what exactly is in those books? Dougal18 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards. Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an employee of the club (He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that he penned ... for the club is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
    I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like arguing that an 'official biographer' of a celebrity should be discredited...nonsense! GiantSnowman 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An official biographer of a celebrity who was hired by that celebrity's talent agency should absolutely be discredited! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players if they don't publish directly on the website?
    The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 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! 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vecteezy (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 surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 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! 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.
    both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.
    Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.
    In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Tan[edit]

Colin Tan (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 once of the sources here is actual news coverage (Techcrunch) and it has a WP:COI issue, the rest are just WP:ROUTINE mentions of him. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Myong-il[edit]

Jang Myong-il (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper flaps[edit]

Improper flaps (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 a notable concept in and of itself. Discussion I initiated at WP Aviation had an unanimous consensus this isn't appropriate as an article. One might be able to make an argument for a redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCVB-LD[edit]

KCVB-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) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furry, Mississippi[edit]

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

I could find no information whatsoever about this location besides the geological survey data-point. No such town exists on this site today, and as far as i can tell, has ever existed. As much as it pains me, whatever this actually was is non-notable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rootsweb says it was named after "W.E. Furr". All I was able to find was mention as a road on a census document. Nothing to support a population ever existing in Furry. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete From the topos it appears to have been a rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FundTool[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Repeatedly deleted under G11. Creator has COI. Exclusively sourced to press releases and the company's own website. – Teratix ₵ 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWVW-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WWVW-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) 02:52, 24 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) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katsunori Iketani[edit]

Katsunori Iketani (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 general notability guideline. current sources in article are databases. search only finds other databases and this, which spells his name 2 different ways...? ltbdl (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weak because article creator or editors could've done more such as add results rather than leave it a single sentence stub article. Japanese Wikipedia hints that he may was a driver of a national level but like this, does not provide context too. Digging further, looking at his result database on JAF (source), he may as well pass criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT as he had some sucesses in top level national racing. A selection of highlights in his career as below.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the Japanese article has the same sources as the English one – the article can't be kept on race results alone, there needs to be some independent, substantive coverage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of having subject-specific guidelines is that verifying that a subject meets that criteria means that their article is kept. In this case, I agree with SpacedFarmer that he meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He also meets criteria 2 since he completed the 1988 season of the World Sportscar Championship (by which point the series was a professional racing series). Therefore, I also !vote keep on this article. DCsansei (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is absolutely not the purpose of SNGs (WP:SNG). SNGs are indicators of when a subject is likely to be notable. Articles still need to meet the GNG: if there are no usable sources, there cannot be an article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline you cite: "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". Unless you've done a review of Japanese motorsports print coverage from the 80s and 90s, I don't think we've established that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" to overrule the SNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't prove a negative. We're at AfD, it's on the keep !voters to present sources. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a different definition of presumed. I define it as meaning that we assume something to be true, meaning that if a subject verifiably passes an SNG, we assume that they merit an article. Per WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic" and "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found."
Generally, in a AfD, the onus would be on keep !voters. Given the presumption of notability if a subject passes an SNG, that onus is reversed when that becomes the case per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I can't find any sources whatsoever. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, but as I cannot be reasonably expected to provide evidence of an absence, we will have to presume that is a fact for now. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, unless you're stating you've comprehensively reviewed print sources from the 80s/90s and were unable to find significant coverage, we'll have to presume that the subject is notable per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have. What a tragedy, Iketani's article deleted because nobody could find a source... how could we allow this to happen to somebody so unquestionably notable? 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above that he meets criteria 2 and 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until non-database sources with significant coverage can be presented. While I am sympathetic to the potential of there being offline, likely Japanese-language sources existing, those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources. Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese. The subject does not, with the sources available, meet the WP:GNG. The SNG section also says "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG ... may still be deleted ..., especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found...." Wikipedia is not a database. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season (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 playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. Already deleted for same reasons in 2020. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Even though they are in a lower division in the season in question, Deportivo La Coruña's notability is undoubted. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per last AFD. GiantSnowman 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Svartner. Continuity in the coverage of a historically professional team is important in an encyclopedia. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even know they are a notable club doesn't mean their seasons qualify under the SNG WP:NSEASONS, they are too far down the ladder now. So delete per notability on the season. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This season is very notable because of the nature of it and the circumstances regarding the club at this time, as it entered a new era. - Cr7s 190.153.84.93 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Wong[edit]

Ernesto Wong (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. Non-notable baseball career with no statistics, and no coverage outside playing city (Turin). 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the obituaries were published by several news outlets: TorinoToday, Repubblica, RaiNews, La Stampa, Corriere. It seems enough to justify GNG, but I found very little pre-death coverage. Broc (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources above basically parrot each other in eulogizing him and mentioning that a relative plays for the Texas Rangers. There's nothing about Wong's career while he never played in a top-flight league. It's not enough to even establish WP:SPORTCRIT. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

Italian language in Romania (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 really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eklashpur High School[edit]

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

I waited patiently before starting this AFD. Firstly, the article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT; No verifiable significant, independent, third-party reliable sources. I was thinking maybe the creator was on WP:ENN because other schools exist. While that aside, there is no importance for entry made by the school in question. Even if, I can't find source for it. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Dogo[edit]

Guatemalan Dogo (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 managed to find trivial mentions of the breed being included in lists of banned breeds, I did ask on Wikiproject Guatemala about possible Spanish sources but I've realised that the project is quite inactive. I'm hoping someone familiar with Spanish will be able to confirm if general notability is met with Spanish sources or not. If notability cannot be established I'm in favour of a redirect to list of dog breeds Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 24 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! 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cahan[edit]

Bill Cahan (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:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. The two external links are broken/outdated. No inline citations to any claims. Article is written like a resume. Edit history indicates COI. News search/scholar is minimal. Recommend delete. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Definitely fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. No sourcing whatsoever. Does indeed read like a resume, but in an unfocused way. Just a rambling stream of what this individual did with their various interests. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No hits in Google for this person; this reads like a personal web page. Not suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Cahan & Associates. The design firm he founded is definitely notable. Quotes below are the abstracts from ProQuest.
  • Baggerman, Lisa (1999). "Annuals with style". How. 14 (2): 142. ProQuest 233342555.
  • Pruzan, Todd (1999). "Hungry minds". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231014590. San Francisco's Cahan & Associates, a graphics design firm, is profiled. Cahan & Associates has won numerous design awards and consistently produces standout pieces.
  • Hall, Peter (1999). "Printed matter". ID: The International Design Magazine. 46 (6): 46. ProQuest 214751639. Bill Cahan has once again proven himself to be "the Steven Spielberg of annual reports" with the creation of Cahan & Associates extraordinary paperback-sized annual report for voice technology company General Magic.
  • McCarthy, Robert (1999). "Against the grain". Photo District News. 19 (4): 121–123. ProQuest 202872273. Bill Cahan, creative director and principal at Cahan and Associates in San Francisco, incorporates photojournalistic essays into commissioned brochures, catalogues and annual reports. His design firm has won numerous awards.
  • Heller, Steven (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231024970. Heller reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates
  • Kidd, Chip (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". ID: The International Design Magazine. 47 (2): 112. ProQuest 214755886. Kidd reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates
Jfire (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of recently located sources and the suggestion of turning this biography into a company article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate[edit]

Nkosana Makate (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)

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games[edit]

Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games (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:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article to exist. Created by the same user who created Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games which I also nominated for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Frank. S5A-0043Talk 08:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way WP:TOOSOON. In 6 months time, it will still be too soon, and so I object to draftifying this as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly. It is very reasonable to have some level of information about a country's participation in international competition two years ahead of time. Therefore, drafspace would be the exact opposite of an indefinite holding area If this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For most events like this, the qualifying tournaments will be at most a year before the event i.e. in 2025. Unless there is evidence that there are 2026 Asian Games qualifiers this year, and so we'll know some qualified Singaporean competitors in 6 months time, then draftspace is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. The current entry contains nothing of value. The desire to create articles way ahead of time needs to be stamped out. It's an unhealthy "I was here first" culture which does not add value to Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per all above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: I strongly oppose draftifying, since it will still be TOOSOON in 6 months time, as Joseph2302 states. Deletion is definitely preferrable. CycloneYoris talk! 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between editors advocating Draftification and those arguing for Deletion. This might come down to No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I contend that "Draftify per TOOSOON" does not hold water in that it will still be too soon for 12–15 more months. There is nothing worth retaining in that the article contains no information other than a circular definition of the article title: "Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games means that Singapore will compete at the 2026 Asian Games". Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Freudenberg-Kolleg[edit]

Hans-Freudenberg-Kolleg (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 is one of many small associations in Germany that rent out living space to students. Neither the association nor its dormitory has any special significance that would justify an article; I couldn't find any independent sources that is not advertisement. Was deleted twice in German Wikipedia because of nonexistent notability. Killarnee (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"