Wikipedia:XfD today

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

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


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Template:A thank you never hurts
Bellare (Dakshina Kannada district)
Isaiah Oghenevwegba O.
Kalloor
Draft:Laxmi Narayana Maharana
Draft:Miss Intercontinental 2022
SuperCops vs Supervillains
Taylor Made Frestyle
WSSS (disambiguation)

Articles[edit]

< May 04 May 06 >

Purge server cache

WeFinance[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Just wanted a second or third pair of eyes on these sources [1] [2] [3] - I don't think any are suitably reliable or independent, but their coverage would be significant. – Teratix ₵ 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

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

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

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

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

Donald Rutledge[edit]

Donald Rutledge (edit | talk | history | 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. I have been unable to find enough references. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Airways

AHRC New York City[edit]

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

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

Internet Optimizer[edit]

Internet Optimizer (edit | talk | history | 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 are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan[edit]

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

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

References

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

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

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

F-WWAI[edit]

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

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

Beenish Chohan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar[edit]

Ramgopal Suthar (edit | talk | history | 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 noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment His only claim to notability in Wikipedia terms is being chairman of the state skills development board. Being an appointed chair of a state advisory board is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia, and the fact that he’s previously been a municipal ward councillor and party official doesn’t help. The rest is just a ridiculous hagiography, entirely unsourced, about his revered rather and devout mother raising him in a holy city among the sand dunes, a quote from his dad, and a homily about how he sacrificed his personal advancement to devote himself to the plight of the marginalised. None of this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lawlor[edit]

Tyler Lawlor (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.)
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but all newspapers can still cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch nationalized or internationalized notability in and of themselves for a person who has virtually nothing wider than just their hometown. For instance, a restaurant owner in Byward Market is not going to clear GNG just because a restaurant critic reviewed his restaurant in the Citizen, a local artist winning a local arts award from the SAW Gallery isn't going to clear NARTIST standards on that basis alone, and on and so forth. Even The New York Times features coverage of local people in local-interest contexts that don't establish permanent national or international notability all by themselves just because their local coverage came from The New York Times instead of the Palookaville Herald, because GNG does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for and not just the raw number of hits that exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still only one source, I don't see quite enough for GNG or any sport notability as being met. I don't think we have notability, still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b and @Bearcat, there were actually four newspaper sources provided, not just one. Remember that a person does not need to be the sole subject (or even a primary subject) of a work for it to satisfy WP:GNG. I also disagree that "local" coverage is any less legitimate than national coverage in these papers, because their audience is the same, i.e. all Times subscribers will read it even if the subject is a New Yorker. For your specific examples (Byward Market restaurant owner, SAW Gallery award winner) – do you have specific examples of these types of subjects having articles deleted by community consensus? --Habst (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the geographic range of a newspaper's readership, it's a question of the context in which the coverage is being given. There have been literally thousands of articles taken to AFD and deleted on the grounds that having a couple of hits of local coverage was not in and of itself enough to overcome the person's lack of a nationalized or internationalized notability claim — high school athletes (e.g. Marquis Fleming), local artists (Laura BenAmots), mayors (Cathy Heron) or municipal councillors (Corky Boozé) or unelected candidates for office (Tiffany Ford), people whose sole claim of notability was winning a minor award of exclusively local significance (Bob Frantz), restaurateurs (Emilio Vitolo) and on and so forth.
Again, I didn't say that local coverage is entirely inadmissible for use — but having a couple of hits of local coverage isn't enough all by itself to overcome not passing WP:NSPORT. And I already addressed above why the St. Catharines Standard (a short blurb) and Harbour City Star (a fashion advertorial in which he's present as a model and not as the subject of discussion) aren't helping. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, thanks, I am interested in seeing at least one of the thousands of examples. Of the ones you linked,
Based on this, it seems like it is very rare, if it has ever happened, that an article with as much coverage provided here has ever been deleted. I have an open mind, but I haven't been able to find any examples. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of links that are or aren't listed in the AFD discussion that matters, it's the number of sources that were or weren't present in the article that matters. They're all articles that cited a handful of local-interest coverage, which was deemed not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from having to clear the defined SNGs for their occupations just because the articles had a bit of local-interest coverage in them. The rules for notability of people always work the same way no matter what occupation they were in: either they have an "inherent" notability claim that meets a defined notability criterion for their occupation, or they have a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm among all the other people in the same occupation who have failed to meet the "inherent" notability criteria. Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; and that always works the same way across all occupations. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I understand the distinction you are making, but it is one without a difference with respect to this discussion, because if we don't have the links to the actual sources, then we can't say that those articles were more well-sourced than this one.
> Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage
^ The above is what I'm looking for even one example of. All of the above AfDs linked have less available sources than this article, regardless of profession, so I don't think they are analogous. Until I find any evidence otherwise, I would have to disagree with the quoted text. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Fahad[edit]

Umm Fahad (edit | talk | history | 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 Iraqi TikTok personality who was recently shot. Seems to lack any notability or sources while alive, a violation of WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually think Internet "personalities" are worth the time of day. However, she seems noteworthy as it further highlights the ludicrous things that people will fall foul of the morality police in the middle east.Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a result of "Morality Police" - as Iraq doesn't have an official designated police force. Iran on the other hand, yes. The Ghashd Ershad (Morality Police) exist there, but don't shoot people (albeit they do harass people). This woman was killed by some lunatic fanatic by the looks of things, nothing related to morality police. Just thought I would clarify that. Ali313korosh (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•My understanding is that in Iraq, an influencer may speak about social and political issues as well as promoting cosmetics and clothing. Perhaps an explanation of the role of influencers would make the death more significant. - - - - 65.18.206.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is only one source that could potentially be considered reliable for WP:NORG, but at this point it fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No reliable hits online either. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing[edit]

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

This article is largely primary sources and WP:SYNTH of these sources. The first half is mostly just explianing what hyperlinks and framing is (mostly unnecessary WP:HOWTO), and the 2nd half largely acknowledges there really aren't copyright issues in US/Germany and other contexts. Why does this even exist? ZimZalaBim talk 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The absence of prohibitions for a subject controversial enough to have led to lawsuits is itself the notable thing worth being covered in an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with this article that cannot be fixed. BD2412 T 22:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article exists because the topic is notable: It satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and HeinOnline, in particular. There are many entire periodical articles about this, such as: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. No evidence has been offered of actual SYNTH or HOWTO. James500 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I agree that this topic is notable, but the article as written is basically an essay. For example, this part of the lead is written as if it's part of an argumentative paper: The issues about linking and framing have become so intertwined under copyright law that it is impractical to attempt to address them separately. As will appear, some decisions confuse them with one another, while other decisions involve and therefore address both. Likewise, this section is 100% OR: Related issues arise from use of inline links (also called image-source or img-src links because the HTML code begins with "img src=") on Web pages. An inline link places material — usually an image such as a JPEG or GIF — from a distant website into the Web page being viewed. For example, the adjacent image is the seal of the USPTO, as shown on some of its pages at the USPTO website. Additionally, the "History of copyright litigation in field" section is also OR, as it lists several cases without providing reliable secondary sources that establish that the cases listed are significant and provides unsourced analysis of the state of the law. Several of the sections lack citations and make arguments, rather than describe what RSes say about this topic. We should not allow an article that draws legal conclusions to remain in mainspace without adequate sourcing; this would be uncontroversial if the article had MEDRS issues and the standard should be the same when we have legal information on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The headnotes in the third series of the Federal Reporter (which is what "F.3d" means) are an independent secondary source. Most cases are not reported, and a case would not be reported in a series of law reports unless it was believed to have precedent value (and is therefore "significant"). In any event, the cases of Kelly and Perfect 10 are discussed in treatises and periodical articles on the subject, which is not surprising since they are Ninth Circuit decisions on the point (and, indeed, they are independently notable).
    And you can add the Ticketmaster and Shetland Times cases to that as well, based on sources in Google Books, such as [17] and numerous other sources that are returned by a search for "Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills"+hyperlinks. I should also point out that a lack of citations is not the same thing as OR.
    The standard of MEDRS should not be applied to law, because law is not an experimental science, legal sources bear no resemblence to medical sources either in their content or their correct use, and it would be pseudolaw to apply the methodolgy of medical science to law. James500 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is not that law is a science or analogous to it, but that we shouldn't present legal information to people based on an editor's opinion or analysis of case law, which is how the article is currently written. I think this article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I also am not arguing that lack of citation implies OR, but this article is clearly written in an essay-like, argumentative style, and the fact that there are no citations in significant parts of the articles compounds the problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding precedential value, that is decided by the court issuing the opinion, not the reporter. I don't think headnotes alone are sufficient to establish that a particular case is significant, since every published case gets them, and not every published case represents a significant legal development. For example, in New York, every appellate decision is published and has precedential value, even if it's a short, unsigned memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "in New York, every appellate decision is published". Published by whom? A law report is not the same thing as an official transcript. I can tell you for certain that in England, not all appellate decisions are reported, and the reporter decides which cases to report based on his opinion of their value, not the court. Similarly in England, the headnote tells you what the reporter thinks the ratio decidendi of the case is. James500 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're published by both the official reporter (the Law Reporting Bureau [LRB]) and by West in their proprietary law reports. The LRB writes the headnotes as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In New York, only selected trial court opinions get reported, but all Appellate Division opinions are reported. Some states and the federal appellate courts are like the UK, where not all appellate decisions are reported. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Voorts: Leaving aside whether the present state of the article is satisfactory (and I was already prepared to accept that it is less than optimal), draftification is not likely to result in improvements, since most drafts are invariably abandoned, because most editors won't edit in the draftspace. How about cutting the article down to a properly referenced "stub" without any content that might potentially violate NOT, so that it can be rebuilt and re-expanded in the mainspace? I can do that for you now if you want. James500 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a start on removing the disputed material. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not attempt to improve a page that has been draftified after an AfD, because there is no satisfactory procedure for moving such pages back to the mainspace. James500 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the process is that any editor in good standing can move it back to mainspace when it's ready, or, if one wants to be cautious, it can be sent through AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify it's clear this article has way too much WP:SYNTH to remain, and in addition is frankly, too technical. We should avoid trying to provide legal advice on Wikipedia. This article should probably focus way less on the case law and a lot more on any news media coverage of the subject (I suspect there have been a lot of reporters and think tanks that have probably explored this). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should focus more on academic coverage in law reviews/journals, rather than media coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The body of case law is the subject. The academic coverage in law reviews is coverage of that body of case law. The problem is not the discussion of cases that are precedents. There may, however, be a problem with what sources that discussion is referenced to, and whether the sources support the claims in that discussion. James500 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist due to an even split between keep and draft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCSD-LP[edit]

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

Not many articles have been attempted to be prodded three times; in that sense alone, this AfD is long overdue. The article itself is a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in the 2000s, but according to the talk page there was a failed prod that was followed by an A7 speedy deletion in 2007. It was recreated in 2009; a 2010 prod tagging was contested because of the prior article. (The contesting rationale notes that at the time, licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, but with the caveat that consensus can change. In this topic area, that happened with this 2021 RfC; we now require significant coverage and cannot source solely to FCC records and other databases.) I just had to procedurally contest a third prod because of the prior prods. I had been considering a redirect to the list of radio stations in Pennsylvania as an alternative to deletion, and I still think that is the best course of action (I do not support retaining the article as it is), but the triple-prod means this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

Computer network naming scheme (edit | talk | history | 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's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [18]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [19]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per [20] and [21], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [22], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela E. Swett[edit]

Pamela E. Swett (edit | talk | history | 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:NPROF. Notability is a bit shaky here. I found a review of her work at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071020600906925, but I doubt it that is enough, I am really more inclined to combine this and several other things to establish the notability of this professor though, if anyone can help. Her Dean-ship doesn’t count, Joukowsky Family Dissertation Award does not appear to be a notable one, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Booysen[edit]

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

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

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

San Vicente Academy[edit]

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

Notability is in question. Could not find reliable sources that sufficiently cover this school. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

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

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

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

Critique of Impure Reason[edit]

Critique of Impure Reason (edit | talk | history | 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:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any reviews of the book besides user reviews and a few brief mentions here and there. As it stands, it appears the book is not adequately covered from independent pubs failing WP:BOOKCRIT. X (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As a graduate student in philosophy, I hope Wikipedia will keep this article. It is of great value to me and my seminar group members. This philosopher's book is important. It is very long and complex, so this well-researched article is very useful. It can benefit a lot of students.
50.78.191.225 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For these reasons:
  1. The notability of the book has been confirmed by world-famous philosophers, including: (a) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker [26], one of Germany's leading philosophers of science and physicist, who contributed the book's strongly endorsing Foreword; (b) renowned American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, who praised the book: "I admire its range of philosophical vision"; and (c) celebrated German philosopher Gerhard Preyer [27], who commended the book as "an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses".
  2. As Brian Martin mentioned, it is difficult to find book reviewers willing to review a 900-page book. However, Wikipedia's standards for a book's notability admit exceptions. One of these is: A book that "is included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet threshold standards" (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). The book was peer reviewed and included in the University of Pittsburgh's PhilSci-Archive [28], which offers "a stable, openly accessible repository in which scholarly articles and monographs may find a permanent home," analogous to Project Gutenberg.
  3. The book is not a vanity publication. By the author's choice, the book was published as a benefit to the public at cost by a nonprofit publisher to make the nearly 900-page printed edition of the book affordable [29]. The book is also made freely available as an eBook through several archives, including PhilPapers, where since the book's publication 3 years ago, more than 2,500 copies have been downloaded [30].
  4. Since the book's Wikipedia article was posted 12/2021, the article has had more than 5,800 pageviews, indicating the article's utility to Wikipedia users.
  5. The article documents the evolution of the book over the course of previous publications by Bartlett spanning a period of more than 50 years. This information is found nowhere else and is valuable to professionals in philosophy.
  6. Further supporting the book's notability, major research libraries in the U.S. and Europe have acquired copies of the printed edition, including Harvard, Wesleyan, Fordham, University of Illinois, Northwestern, Stanford, University of Washington, Utrecht University, Leipzig University, and University of Paris [31].
  7. A translation into Spanish of the book's Introduction has been published, indicating growing international recognition of the book's importance [32].
Toh59 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of these points address the requirements of NBOOK. (Toh59, you might find it helpful to read WP:ATA.)
  1. The quoted endorsements are not, as far as I can work out, from reviews. These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here.
  2. It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course. Also, the threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books have to do with requirements like "it has an ISBN", not the notability standards we discuss here. The inclusion in PhilSci-Archive is not relevant to notability.
  3. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  4. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  5. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  6. Being collected by libraries is a threshold standard (i.e., if it wasn't collected by libraries, we'd be much more confident it was not notable), but not a notability indicator in itself.
  7. Being translated is not direct proof of notability, though it is usually the sort of thing that results in the generation of reviews (which are proof of notability)
Despite the poor argument above, I am open to the idea that this book may be notable. I have not done a search myself for sources, and there may be reviews in paywalled academic journals.
More intriguingly, the IP editor's mention of a "seminar group" suggests that this book might satisfy NBOOK#4, The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs. Toh59, 50.78.191.225, if you are able to provide syllabi or course listings of classes at multiple schools which have used this book, that would provide a rationale to keep the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked OpenSyllabus and there are two books listed there with this title, but they're by other authors, so it's not this book. Psychastes (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erum Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Erum Akhtar (edit | talk | history | 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 WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.
Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR clearly. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has appeared in numerous notable dramas. I remember her in leading PTV dramas roles. She was a model as well.(2400:ADCC:160:1F00:C166:DEA8:28EC:A094 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Not enough! you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)[edit]

Colleen Brown (artist) (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97 talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Trachtenberg[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable person. The article lists he is a history professor and that he appeared before a Congressional committee (the cited source for the latter is about a completely different person and does not mention him at all, so I am not sure this is correct). He is not a public figure, not well known, nor an especially prominent scholar. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of PNWR locomotives[edit]

List of PNWR locomotives (edit | talk | history | 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:NLIST - I cannot find any independent reliable sources talking about this set of rolling stock as a group. The current sources are all self-published and of questionable reliability. A simplified, well-sourced table at Portland and Western Railroad that simply lists the quantity of each locomotive class would be more appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano)[edit]

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

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

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

ENAPU[edit]

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

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

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

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

Mihaaru Awards[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The topic is an award given by a local newspaper. The contents is a list of recipients, and the sourcing is just about recipients of it. Nothing approaching even 1/4 of GNG coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters[edit]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training[edit]

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

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

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

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

Georgina Mellor[edit]

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

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haini Wolfgramm[edit]

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

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico[edit]

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

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Pretorius[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Courtney Woods[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Courtney Woods (edit | talk | history | 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 character, incredibly minor side character who appears as in three episodes. Fails WP:NCHARACTER and GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SM Supermalls[edit]

List of SM Supermalls (edit | talk | history | 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 pretty much an apparent violation of NOTDIRECTORY, containing nothing more than a laundry list of SM Supermalls and their branches. If people really needed a directory, it can easily be found on the company's own website. The article already needed a massive clean-up by removing a lot of those supposed proposed and future malls without verifiable and independent sources.

Not proposing yet to remove the other notable SM Supermalls that have own separate articles (such as SM North EDSA, Megamall, Mall of Asia, etc). GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, a large chunk (if not majority of the sources) are from the corporation SM Prime Holdings itself, not necessarily independent. If not delete, I at least propose that it be re-directed back to the main SM Supermalls article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge per Lenticel. Suggested columns to retain: number (if feasible), name, location, and opening date. The descriptions are best transferred to the malls' articles themselves (if properly-sourced with non-independent sources). Remove images altogether, per recent precedences in lists like at Philippine highway network (discourage gallery-like content), and also to alleviate no-Freedom of Panorama violations on Commons (as there is little need to share more images on Commons if there is no "Image" column on the first place). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Kabobo[edit]

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

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

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

List of Lok Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party[edit]

List of Lok Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party (edit | talk | history | 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:NOTABILITY, this is a relatively new and regional political party that has never had a Lok Sabha member outside the state of Punjab. Even the larger, national and older mainstream political parties like the Indian National Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) don't have the list of their Lok Sabha members here. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBS-LD[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"[edit]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle" (edit | talk | history | 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 states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points:
    Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
    You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.
    I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [35], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [36]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [37], and in context of national university organization [38] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [39][40][41][42]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to connect reputation to Caltech -- and Deep Springs, Harvey Mudd, or University of Main School of Law is a better analogy to what I meant as my point that size of institution in itself isn't a determinant of notability. Thanks for the better comparison. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing[edit]

2023 Khyber bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aymatth2 Because they are really not? I'm very skeptical of these assesment that they are "notable" per WP:CORP. Hotels rarely fullfil it. I can see if its in Bali or Jakarta but Bintan?Nyanardsan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hotels like these are often notable. A typical resort hotel is a large structure or structures covering a large area. It may have interesting architecture. Construction is expensive and messy. It employs a lot of people. Events are held at it. Journalists stay there. It changes ownership. Any or all of these aspects may be discussed in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been to Bintan and it's high end, caters to wealthy businessmen from Singapore looking for a quick getaway in particular. Economically it's closer tied to Singapore than Indonesia and you'll find these resorts feature in the top southeast Asian magazines. It is possible that some like this might not have the sources we need online though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't one of the resort hotels, and seems to be a lesser notable one inland. Can't find adequate coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states[edit]

List of rulers of Shan 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)

Article is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [43], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [44], [45], [46]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i[edit]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i (edit | talk | history | 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 – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 13 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! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media[edit]

List of Power Sphera Universe media (edit | talk | history | 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. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 20 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! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography: Smells like fancruft/listcruft, and fails NLIST, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Found promo, listings, nothing from independent sources showing this meets NLIST. I thought about CLN, but don't think the few entries here need a second separate navigation list from Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Power Sphera Universe does not exist, and it doesn't appear there is WP:SIRS for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 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) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Loka II[edit]

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

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

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

Gating (punishment)[edit]

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

seems to be just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-08 (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see @Stifle and @S Marshall who debated in 2008 are still active - like to comment guys? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So's @Hobit. We might all be a smidge older now.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [47] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gates and Partners[edit]

Gates and Partners (edit | talk | history | 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 that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 27 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) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

French ship Gapeau (B284) (edit | talk | history | 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 reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 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! 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

HijackThis[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ultimate Defender[edit]

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

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

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

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

Security Shield[edit]

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

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

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

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

Russian youth[edit]

Russian youth (edit | talk | history | 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 is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.
My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of Gujarat[edit]

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

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

Runyantown, Indiana[edit]

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

Apparently a short-lived 4th class post office in Mr. Runyan's store, the latter being the only thing approaching a substantial mention of the place. GHits are all clickbait, fed gazetteer listings, or Google's AI throwing out every Indiana history book in an attempt to offer something relevant. THe map location given is obviously wrong, but even the more likely spot a bit to the east has almost nothing there. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo noted players[edit]

List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo noted players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicated content of List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo players, which is more developed and properly referenced. Svartner (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li[edit]

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

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E as this person is only notable for post-event legalities regarding the Canada convoy protest. All sources in the article and found in a WP:BEFORE check are in regards to the protest. Subject has otherwise demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity, while the article has been repeatedly vandalized in attack-page style. Pinging @Bueller 007: who initially raised BLP1E concerns. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a redirect would be okay, if there's a thought that someone might be searching on the name of the litigant, but that's probably not needed. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being okay with a redirect. This Google News link shows that Zexi Li has given numerous interviews to the media about the Canada convoy protest. This article calls her "spokesperson and the face of the lawsuit" against the convoy, so I think her name is a plausible search query. Several reasons from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting also apply such as "They have a potentially useful page history" (there is useful information about her activism about the Canada convoy that potentially could be merged) and they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely" (an article about a lawsuit's spokesperson is duplicate to an article about the lawsuit). Cunard (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree that there is a "useful page history." I'll reiterate that there is absolutely nothing that I would consider merging from this article, so preserving the page history is of zero importance to me. I strongly prefer hard deletion, at which point if people think "Zexi Li" is a plausible search term, a redirect can be created later. Any support for a redirect that I've expressed here should be considered weak. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GhostOfDanGurney on the page history. As I said above, although I don't object to the redirect, I see nothing worth merging, so there's no need to retain the page history, which is not potentially useful. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life would meet the due weight policy if merged to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. This is why I consider the content and history to be useful and worth preserving. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article, there are several different target articles suggested here. Can we narrow this down to one to Redirect or Merge to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.[edit]

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

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

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

Daniel Rosenfeldt[edit]

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

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan women during the Taliban regime[edit]

Afghan women during the Taliban regime (edit | talk | history | 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 exact page already exists at Treatment of women by the Taliban. Noorullah (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenny (rugby league)[edit]

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

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

Jack Nilson (fighter)[edit]

Jack Nilson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | 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 GNG and no longer meets NMMA under its revised criteria Nswix (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kizito[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, in this brief profile, this, this, this and this. Whether when combined it's enough to reach WP:GNG I'm not sure, but with what we have and what is likely available offline I think it's worth a weak keep, although I'd suggest a redirect to Kenya international players if a list did exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keagan Glade[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was three sentences of coverage here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Édes Anna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can you explain what WP:BEFORE you conducted for this non-English film, OlifanofmrTennant? Because I'm seeing a lot of non-English coverage of the film in Google Books (and even a lot of English mentions and French, for some reason), which would itself imply coverage in 1950s Hungarian newspapers, though I have no idea if such papers are digitized as of yet. Being in the Cannes Film Festival would also imply coverage, which may explain the French coverage actually. SilverserenC 02:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I completlty forgot to check for non-english sources. I looked through Google, Gnews and Gbooks but coulnt find anything that seemed to be SIGCOV. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional complication I noticed is that Édes Anna is apparently also the name of a Hungarian brand of paprika. I had to add the director's name to my search string to narrow the results to those actually about the film. SilverserenC 03:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a few things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupteswor Cave, Parbat[edit]

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

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

Kalloor[edit]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor (" the place in Tamil Nadu, India, where the Apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, is believed to have been killed"). Possible hoax, and unreferenced. Fails WP:V. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington[edit]

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

This was a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [48] [49] [50]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [51](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [52] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pratt (sailor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and Austria. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is plenty of sourcing available as Pratt's Olympic selection and career was discussed in media at the time. For example, see: "Pratt's the right choice". The Age. 1984-03-24. p. 36. Retrieved 2024-05-05. --Habst (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share other sources if you have them, that's the only link used in the article that's about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, I added it to the article because I found it. It was only the first one that showed up in my feed, I'll find another when I have a moment free. --Habst (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even in Gnewspapers, I can only see match reports, nothing at length about this person. Decline for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, I would check WP:Newspapers.com instead of Gnewspapers. I found some at length sources, I added a few to the article (it had no non-database sources at the start of this AfD). --Habst (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sources I found on Trove: [53] & [54]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BeanieFan11 and Habst. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koehler Instrument Company, Inc.[edit]

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

This is not related to the well known plumbing company, but a not so commonly known specialty business who makes laboratory test equipment and offer test services to the oil and gas industry. I see articles authored by "Dr. Raj Shah​ is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 28 years." but I'm not seeing much coverage on the company in news or books and does not appear to pass WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

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

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

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

File:Morricone Youth Band.jpg[edit]

File:Morricone Youth Band.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Creedle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploaded in 2016 as self-made, but appears to be a black-and-white screenshot of a 2012 YouTube video. hinnk (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nath – Zewar Ya Zanjeer (title card).jpg[edit]

File:Nath – Zewar Ya Zanjeer (title card).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Asehids (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is not being used on infobox, it is rather being used at the bottom of the article to merely illustrate the first season. Thus fails WP:NFCC8 as it isn't really contextually significant. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mann-Sundar.jpg[edit]

File:Mann-Sundar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Entertainment4Reality (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same reason as Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_May_5#File:Nath_–_Zewar_Ya_Zanjeer_(title_card).jpg —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 08:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg[edit]

File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vk.alberta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pius XII Catholic Center marker.jpg[edit]

File:Pius XII Catholic Center marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image appears to be a slightly-cropped version of one used at this Radyo Veritas online article, dated January 27, 2024 (1:29 pm). Notice the orange-reddish effect at the far right edge that bears striking identical similarity to the original image online. Suspected copyvio. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Hotel and Casino10.jpg[edit]

File:Royce Hotel and Casino10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: needless near-duplicate of File:Royce Hotel and Casino9.jpg. Redundant. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royce Hotel and Casino8.jpg[edit]

File:Royce Hotel and Casino8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: needless near-duplicate of File:Royce Hotel and Casino9.jpg. Redundant. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum4.jpg[edit]

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum4.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the two photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum5.jpg[edit]

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the three photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Redemption Loyola Memorial Park23.jpg[edit]

File:The Redemption Loyola Memorial Park23.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyrighted sculpture. The description itself speaks for itself: "The Redemption 1974 by Eduardo Castrillo". No FoP in the Philippines, and more so, violation of U.S. copyright law. Enwiki follows only U.S. FoP, but U.S. FoP does not extend to public monuments. Worse, it is caught by pre-1978 date for establishment of U.S. copyright over Philippine artistic works courtesy of Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), and was still copyrighted on the URAA date for the Philippines (January 1, 1996). Copyvio, image should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Will remain under U.S. copyright for 95 more years (1974+95+1=January 1, 2070) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category: Willesden Cemetery[edit]

  • Propose deleting : I created the category in error. Headhitter (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian business executives by industry[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Mason (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian mining entrepreneurs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. Also there's no Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant) Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive. JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent - closer examination - the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess. JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

"Undead" (Yoasobi song)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Templates and Modules[edit]

Miscellany[edit]

User:Khadija Serraf[edit]

User:Khadija Serraf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Spammy, untranslatable Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's Tifinagh script. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

File:SEYCGA.png[edit]

File:SEYCGA.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting administrator did not consider threshold of originality argument posed by me. There were two relicense votes and one delete vote, I do not think that's a consensus to delete.

For the benefit of this discussion, I will paste the argument here:

"The only part that could be above TOO is the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag (I can't tell which one it is), but there isn't much sufficient artistic detail to differentiate it from other drawings of flags. Addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection (see File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png)." —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dispenza[edit]

Joe Dispenza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

G4 speedied on 6 January 2020, ten years after the original AfD in 2010. I find it hard to believe that someone would have held onto a substantially identical copy of the page for a decade. No opinion on the merits of the topic or whether other criteria apply. Deleting admin is no longer active. Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article deleted in 2020 was actually significantly poorer than the one deleted in 2010. The 2020 article had two references (1 2), neither of which were much good, and a link to his Youtube channel. I've temporarily undeleted for review of all, but for me this is endorse deletion as G4 is accurate considering it is actually a reduced version of the 2010 deleted article. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 per the McClenon Criterion. You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD. Of course, any editor is welcome to create a new, properly-sourced article for the subject. Owen× ☎ 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yala Batik[edit]

Sri Yala Batik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Early in the discussion, four potential sources were identified (by me). Apart from the nominator, neither of the folowing two delete !votes made any comment on these sources' suitability or lack thereof. As such, I don't think it was accurate to conclude that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth." I understand that !votes by IP editors may be given less weight or none at all, and had the delete !voters addressed the potential sources directly, I would agree with the close. But as things stood after three relists I don't believe there was consensus on how to interpret the source coverage. Paul_012 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Rowley[edit]

Max Rowley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject was a well known Australian theatre, radio and television announcer, broadcaster and voiceover man.

I have found the following references showing WP:GNG:

References about his academy:

Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC) (edited 05:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  • You don't need DRV's permission to recreate a page in such a way that it decisively beats the reasons given for deletion in its afd. In this case, it was for being entirely unreferenced, and that appears accurate - the latest deleted revision, and spot checks of previous versions every couple years back to its creation in 2004, showed zero explicit citations and not even any external links except for https://www.maxrowley.com/.
    If you really, really want to write a new article backwards from the old version, I suppose we could userfy it for you. The usual advice is to do without. —Cryptic 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start a draft using AfC. Provide the references from the deleted article. It could be recreated directly in mainspace, but only by someone who is confident. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, I agree with you, but the draft could be created by me. Can you please provide me with the source from the last revision before it was deleted, so I and other users can hopefully improve it? Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"