Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 16	March 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Gwadar labourers shooting

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

All the coverage is from the time of the event in May 2017. No WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect (partially) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. If there is later coverage it likely isn't in English so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. No apparent sourcing beyond reporting as it happened. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 Balochistan attacks

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

Fails WP:EVENT. All the sources are from February 2019 when this attack occurred. Source 7 actually predates the date of the attack. No WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (partially) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. If there is later coverage it likely isn't in English so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. No apparent sourcing beyond the reporting as it happened. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jide Johnson

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

Fails WP:GNG, current sources do not help towards WP:BLP and a BEFORE also suggests they're non-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable and per source WP: THREE never found. No result per WP: BEFORE popped a result. This, fails GNG All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Teye Agbove

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Article has many issues with sourcing, very dependent. He works for MFWA, The Fourth Estate, and pieces from thefourthgate are used 10 times in this article. Other pieces are mostly passing mentions, some awards by the organisation he works for, others, non-notable. ModernGhana and newsghana.com.gh are unreliable publications. Thus, non-notable investigative journalist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most sources are unreliable and/or not independent and/or do not show significant coverage. Luke10.27 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrybuilt

AfDs for this article:

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

Realtively small company making kitchens and furniture with no particularly notable features. No obvious ways of linking to other Wikipedia pages Newhaven lad (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, California, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expected to be voting delete, but this, weirdly, has coverage. Looks like much more than some small manufacturer; nationally-scoped company with both mainstream and design-industry coverage. Besides the decent references already in the article (The New York Times (though its a bit short), Dezeen, Dwell, Surface), [1] (some interior design industry publication), [2] (Sunset). And to the nom, while taggable, an article being WP:ORPHANed isn't a deletion rationale. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being an orphan isn't a reason to delete - but when I couldn't find anywhere it might link to that made it feel less notable Newhaven lad (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also some coverage in Architectural Digest [3], I think we have just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. I commend the nominating editor for their effort to ascertain the article's notability, and encourage them to read WP:CANTDEORPHAN, if they are unaware of it, for possible fixes in this situation. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (!vote change) per subsequent discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. ALL of the sources rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or info from the company. There are no sources I can locate that meet GNG/NCORP criteria, including all of the ones listed above in this AfD (some of which are a mere 5 sentences). The key isn't "coverage", but depth of Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:HighKing. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: twice recreated by a SPA (COI declared). No significant independent coverage; it lacks both notability and importance (I know, imp is not among WP criteria, but having importance one may expect coverage, hence an incentive for a wikipedian to dig deeper). - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G4. ^Complex/_Rational 12:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golam Rabby

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. Previous deleted on 21 January 2024. scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golam Rabby ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Editors are free to create a redirect if desired. Sandstein 19:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flaccus (composer)

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

Flaccus, the slave of someone named Claudius, provided musical accompaniment on the tibia to each of the plays of Terence when they were originally produced, and nothing else will ever be known about him. He has no notability independent of Terence, and does not merit an entry of his own in either the Oxford Classical Dictionary or Grove Music Online. Anything that can be written about him belongs at Terence or the articles on each of his six plays. Cal Engime (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like it will never expand beyond DICDEF length, as there are no sources about this person found in the last 2000 yrs. I don't see any either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a redirect/merge target? Deletion seems like it would be quite inappropriate in a case like this where the content would be better covered in a larger article. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anywhere, it should redirect to Terence. The portion of the article on a phrase of music which Flaccus did not write is already appropriately covered at Hecyra. I sure would be surprised if the few people who might look him up will be seeking him out at the present title, though—we know that Flaccus performed the music, and we can only conjecture that he was its "composer" as well. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the redirect should be simply to Flaccus. I'm not sure it's clear that someone looking for information on a Flaccus who wrote songs is less likely to be looking for information on Horace or Persius. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto González (footballer)

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

Badly sourced BLP. My own searches yielded a passing mention in Noroeste and the usual database sources like BeSoccer and Soccerway. He has an extremely common name so there might be WP:SIGCOV out there somewhere but I'm really struggling and this article has been in a dreadful state since 2016 so an AfD is overdue. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Search yielded little that would come close to WP:SIGCOV, bordering on failing WP:SPORTSBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ' - Per nom, article is scant to the point of empty :MiniMayor98 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 12:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Hernández

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

Played for a brief time in the second tier of Mexico before hanging up his boots. I can't find anything better than his Transfermarkt profile and a bunch of hits about the unrelated Illian Hernández. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article to judge. Open and shut in my view. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV by miles. Anwegmann (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The keyword "Gerardo Hernández" on internet finds other men of the same name instead of this Mexican soccer player, failing WP:V too. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yermolayev. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yermolay

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

I had redirected this to Yermolay Gamper in December last year, which was just undone. As of now, Gamper is the only Yermolay, Yermolai, Ermolai or Ermolay on English Wikipedia, so the name in its present state fails WP:NNAME, and I cannot find many, if any sources outside of dictionaries and baby name websites; the Russian language equivalent article seems to be sourced predominantly to dictionaries and there is only one source on this article that actually pertains to the name itself, which is also kind of a dictionary website, making it a WP:NOTDICT fail as well. Some of the other people listed might be notable, so I propose that the redirect be restored so that the page can be spun out if they ever receive articles, though it could also be redirected to Yermolayev, which explains the etymology. Sorry for the long read. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments, although I don't think that redirecting it to Gospodin Gamper was appropriate, which is why I unredirected it. I would be happier with redirecting it to Yermolayev. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. In fact, it probably is more appropriate in hindsight, as it's not likely that many people will be searching for Yermolay Gamper by typing in 'Yermolay'. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhana Skacinta

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

Non-notable band, unsourced since ever. I would PROD but an IP just started editing it again (which is why I remembered it existed) and would likely be a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Malaysia. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Malay Mail article, which calls them the most successful band that has come from the skinhead community in the history of Malaysian popular music, sufficient to pass WP:BAND#C7. Moreover, the band has 62 total hits on ProQuest, and while it's likely that many of those are only brief mentions, it's enough to show that they're well known in the region, and that detailed Malay sources are likely to exist. Mach61 14:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the one who started the article. "Non-notable" where? There were popular and well known in Malaysia. Are they now? I don't know but that's not necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy of trying to include topics left out due to systemic bias and, "They were popular in Malaysia, but who cares about that???" is the kind of systemic bias we should be working against here. I didn't add citations or sources when I started the stub: that was not common back then. I might try to do that now, or others can help. Interlingua (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Also some coverage in NME (which is considered a RS): [4], lesser coverage here [5] Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As regards keep or merge; there is consensus to not delete. A new merger discussion can be started if desired. Sandstein 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyons in fiction

AfDs for this article:

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

Like many 'in fiction' and like topics, there is a chance this is a notable topic (a good one, given sources like [6]). Unfortunately, our current execution is simply terrible. Just three footnotes. A WP:OR prose opening with no source, followed by a gigantic list of random works that mention this topic that fails WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA. This needs to be rewritten from scratch, as nothing here is rescuable, or in other words, this merits a WP:TNT treatment, although a WP:ATD-R alternative is to redirect this to Tachyon#In_fiction, from which it was spun long time ago. The short section there is at least referenced, if poorly - but still better than what we have here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep until and unless the nomination statement is amended to remove references to the manual of style. MOS is for how we present information, not what information to be presented. Thus, any AfD nomination statement which makes reference to the MOS does not support deletion. Ping me if it's corrected. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not correct. The nomination statement supports deletion due to issues such as OR. As well as failure of WP:V. And from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: "Other policies apply. Trivia sections found in other publications outside Wikipedia (such as IMDb) may contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or even libel. However, trivia sections (and others) in Wikipedia articles must not contain those, and their content must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research." And this article fails all of those (well, NPOV, perhaps not so much). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every issue you cite from the MOS is correctable by editing, proving my point that MOS arguments are irrelevant to deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by editing you mean blanking, I do not see a difference. And how else are we supposed to fix it? By sourcing? Well, most of the content here is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable and will need to be deleted, as rewrites time and again have shown (rewrites of similar topics done by me or User:TompaDompa, fo rexample). Right now we have an unsourced, ORish collection of trivia that needs to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) MOS:POPCULT says Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. This is a restatement of WP:PROPORTION for a specific context. TompaDompa (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. The article itself has severe no issues. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly, I'm surprised the tachyons article has such extensive, decent sourcing. We don't need an article about a fictional particle's appearances in media, it can be covered in a few sentences in the tachyon article. I'm not seeing notability for this fork. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:OR/WP:V problem can be solved by cutting out the relatively small part in the introductory section which is not based on either secondary or primary sources (while probably most of what's based on primary sources there is better suited further down). The abundant sources found in the Google Books search both show that the topic is notable and can be used to go through the article, fulfilling the suggestions of MOS:POPCULT quoted above and trimming the rest of the examples. In my personal experience, the current list of appearances (bad because it lacks secondary sources and commentary) can be helpful in looking for more appropriate secondary sources if someone is willing to put in the effort. So failing that, I'd prefer a merge to deletion, so that on the one hand the list is at least preserved in the history for future improvement, and on the other hand the meager content supported by the three existing secondary sources can be used to the improve the even more meager content supported by one secondary source at Tachyon#In fiction. Daranios (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed material that lacked proper sourcing. Two sentences remain. If somebody feels up to the task of expanding the article during the course of the WP:AfD discussion based on proper sources that would be great, though I don't personally anticipate finding the time to do so. Failing that, I don't see much of a case for keeping a stand-alone article as opposed to redirecting/merging to Tachyon#In fiction—expansion can always be done at the latter and a split performed at a later stage. The material that was removed can be viewed via the article history, should anybody find that useful for locating sources as Daranios suggested above—though I would add that in my experience, that approach tends to skew the balance of WP:ASPECTS away from the relative weight given by sources on the overarching topic and towards the biases of Wikipedia's editors. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've taken a cursory look at a handful of sources and added some of them to Tachyons in fiction#Further reading. Going by those sources, authors (even when ostensibly discussing tachyons in a science fiction context) focus on tachyons as a theoretical concept much more than as a fictional one, and the principal tachyon-related work of fiction seems to be Gregory Benford's Timescape (1980). These sources could probably be used to write at least a bit more on the topic; the article is well and truly a stub at the moment. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted almost the entire article. This was a list of tachyons in fiction, just didn't have the "list of" in its name. You should've just let it be deleted at AFD if it was decided it shouldn't exist, instead of deleting it while the AFD was still going. Dream Focus 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned the article up so it could be (1) improved unencumbered by the dead weight of material that would for lack of proper sourcing need to removed regardless, or alternately (2) merged without removing that same material during or after the merge. This is a tried-and-tested way of improving these kinds of articles; see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer for examples of similar articles I have cleaned up and rewritten during AfD discussions. Improvement is preferable to deletion and it seems unlikely that the outcome of this discussion would have been "delete" rather than at minimum "redirect" anyway. You should welcome this approach. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a list it obviously failed WP:NLIST. Where else outside Wikipedia and possibly TV Tropes can one find a "list of works in fiction that mention the word tachyon"? This was unencyclopedic fancruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A List of tachyons in fiction on the other hand, meaning relevant appearances of tachyons in fiction as attested by secondary sources, would fulfill WP:NLIST! As usual, I would have gone around the other way and would have first referenced, then trimmed, but sourcing, adding commentary and trimming are relevant steps to solve indicated problems. So for me the question is if a prose article, such as it has been started now, can support all relevant instances, or if a complementary list, the better version of what we had before, might be beneficial. I could envision both cases. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good approximation for when a list article on these kinds of fiction-related topics might be beneficial in addition to a prose article is "never". There is no need for a prose article to support all relevant instances, what it needs to do is present the information in line with WP:PROPORTION, i.e. treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. A list article still needs to do that, but also needs to have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Experience tells us that the list format itself encourages the addition of content that lacks proper sourcing. This is likely because of an impulse to get the list closer to being "complete"/exhaustive, but without any consideration of relative importance to the overall topic doing so of course does not result in a proper list article but more of an index or catalogue—something more appropriate for TV Tropes or Wikia/Fandom (or possibly a category).
Regarding the more general case: I try to imagine what a WP:Featured list of that kind would look like, and I keep running into a few problems, mainly where to put the threshold for inclusion and what/how much information to present about each entry. Both of those things need to reflect the sources on the topic and maintain a proper balance of WP:ASPECTS. I think it's pretty clear that in most cases we cannot present an exhaustive set of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever, so we need to establish some sort of inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Likewise, each entry would need to provide sufficient context to explain how and why it is an example of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever that should appear on the list without being disproportionate either in the context of that particular entry or compared to other entries. All the while we need to avoid performing any editorial WP:ANALYSIS or interpretation of the works themselves. This would not, to put it mildly, be trivial, and it puts extremely high requirements on the sources. Such sources, I daresay, simply do not exist for these topics (or at least the majority of them). If we fundamentally cannot even in principle bring an article up to WP:Featured content standards, then we should not have such an article in the first place (which is not to say that the topic should not be covered on Wikipedia in some other form on some other article). On the other hand, we have no fewer than three WP:Featured articles on such topics: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that WP:NLIST is neither uncomplicated nor uncontroversial. The exact text is Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [...] There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. I would not say, for instance, that the "Tachyons" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction discusses the proposed list topic (be it called list of tachyons in fiction, list of appearances of tachyons in fiction, works of fiction featuring tachyons, or whatever) "as a group or set", though I would say that it discusses the overall topic tachyons in fiction in the general/abstract; others may disagree. TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be one who'd disagree to the SF Encyclopedia article not discussing appearances of tachyons in fiction as a group. I would also be satisfied with the relatively simple, if not completely concise, list critereon to include any work where the use of tachyons is discussed by a reliable secondary source in non-trivial manner, i.e. beyond simply stating that they "mention the word tachyon", as Piotrus has phrased it. Having such a list near-complete (with regard to available secondary sources) and fine-balancing the extent of discussion of each appearance between and within secondary source would then be the, admittedly hard, work of someone wanting to get this to a featured list. Anyway, I personally am not planning on creating/spinning out/recreating from the old article such a list. I only want to add a bit more on the prose article and don't expect to reach any limit there. Daranios (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are possible inclusion criteria, though it needs must be said that they are very inclusive and would result in (what by the balance of the sources are) very minor examples going on the list along with the foremost ones. This is an example of what I mean by not considering the relative importance to the overall topic. As I said above, it becomes more of a catalogue or index than a meaningfully crafted list article. One might also, less charitably, describe it as an exercise in stamp collecting. I can't say I see the point in creating or indeed retaining this kind of uncurated list in mainspace (as opposed to on an external wiki, blog, or a self-maintaining category). It is, to be frank, a recipe for extremely poor content, one step up from WP:Original research, and in essence a collection of raw data without the proper contextual information. Why we would ever want to take that approach, when we know how to create quality content on these kinds of topics by writing prose articles, is beyond me. It is, well, precisely what the essay WP:CARGO warns against. TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: while I enjoy such articles and would like to see them preserved at TV Tropes in a systematic manner, I don't see how they are "one step up" from OR - they are pure OR, unreferenced stamp collecting :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objections raised by TompaDompa notwithstanding, I was describing a sourced version, so not OR. Daranios (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth noting that sourced material can also constitute WP:Original research, for instance through WP:Improper editorial synthesis. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research, as our policy says. TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a possible case/danger of OR, but again not really what was discussed above. Daranios (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting increasingly off-topic here, but suffice it to say that creating lists can be OR even when the entries themselves are sourced. It depends on how it's done. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tachyon#In fiction - Remove the massive, poorly sourced example farm, which is the whole reason why this needed to be split out into a separate article in the first place, and what's left is a small section of sourced information that can be easily covered at the main article on Tachyons, and would actually be a more helpful way of presenting that information to readers due to the added context of the rest of the article explaining what the theoretical particle actually is. Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ merge per Rorschacma. Once you remove the poorly sourced list of examples, WP:NOPAGE is appropriate here. There isn't very much to say, but a very brief summary could appear as an WP:ATD. I would be fine with plain deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOPAGE is still appropriate here, per Zxcvbnm. As many editors have already noted, there isn't enough for a stand-alone article once you remove the unsourced material (which someone thankfully did). This is best covered at Tachyon. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rorshacma, Shooterwalker, and Zxcvbnm: I don't care too strongly about keep or merge and split out again when appropriate, but still would like to point out that we have a decent paragraph after only a fraction of the secondary sources listed at the article and popping up in the Google Books search have been used. So while providing added context of the rest of the article explaining what the theoretical particle actually is remains as an argument, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split only describes the current state, not the source material, and There isn't very much to say seem incorrect to me. Daranios (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! Personally, I would still advocate for Merger, simply because of the WP:NOPAGE argument. I think it would greatly benefit readers' understanding of the topic if this information was presented as part of the same article that actually explains what tachyons are, and neither article is so long that length would be an issue. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. The article I nominated [7] was a very different beast from what we have now (effectively rewritten from scratch, mostly by TompaDompa). As such, I am withdrawing my nomination and ping everyone who voted so they can reconsider their votes (IMHO we can consider merger but it is not necessary and keeping in the current state is preferrable, and I'd prefer to retain the old history of the article as well). @Shooterwalker, TompaDompa, Daranios, Dream Focus, Jclemens, Oaktree b, and Georgethedragonslayer: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really take credit for most of the rewrite here—I removed the old unsourced material and located a few usable sources, but the new material was all added by Daranios (and some of it was then copyedited by me). TompaDompa (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is in much better shape now, but even at the time of nomination I would day that it was better than nothing and thus not a proper candidate for TNT. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tachyon. After cleanup, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether to keep this now-stub or to merge it as proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tachyon: In its current state, I think what's listed here isn't enough to have a separate article and could be moved to the main article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY. /Julle (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tachyon article improved per WP:HEY, but given its lightness, might be better served as a topic on Tachyon

MiniMayor98 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Do we need a separate "in Fiction" article for a fictional particle? Ben Azura (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Azura: I'd say there is difference in nature between a scientific hypothesis and a piece of fiction like Unobtainium. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I change my vote to Keep based on the cleanup work done during AfD and Piotrus withdrawing the nomination. Ben Azura (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramm Bogadi

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are generally trivial or from social media or IMDB. Draftified twice to allow improvements to be made but returned to mainspace immediately by its author. No evidence for WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IMDb is a trivial medium. How do you say there is no evidence of significance? Take a look at the IMDb page. I collect content from standard, official websites and wrote this article. Thelakyanaik (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines with pretty no reliable source coverage. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The artist or actor is not regarded well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Sources like imdb and bookmyshow are not helpful. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City-recognized tribes in the United States

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

"City-recognized tribes" are not a thing. A Google search of the term generates only three websites: Wikipedia itself and two Filipino websites. Editor has been promoting their organization the "Una Nation" throughout Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:Notability Yuchitown (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you want to silence actual history, then DELETE LivingWellat50 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please calm down. Second, there are absolute zero sources for "City-recognized tribes in the United States." Please read about wp:original research. Yuchitown (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

ZERO SOURCES? https://laserfiche.springfield-or.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1274041&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Springfield-Laserfiche&cr=1 That is directly from the City of Springfield, Oregon when the "recognized the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods". LivingWellat50 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the city of Springfield did issue a proclamation recognizing the Una Nation, but like Nate said, it has no force of law, and "city recognized tribes" are not an established concept. Not only that, but a city document is not a secondary source. Wikipedia, although we can use primary sources, is meant to be a reflection of academic sources. (See the General Notability Guidelines) Until there are more reliable, preferably secondary, sources, which talk about city-recognized tribes, there is no reason to have a list of them on Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY when there is literally only one example of such a recognition. PersusjCP (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So official government websites are not able to be used as sources. Got it. Yes, sir. Only what you say, sir. Is that better, sir? Or would you prefer us kiss your feet, sir? Let's silence the only example. Good thinking! You're a pro! LivingWellat50 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am not a sir, and no need to be so rude. I am just explaining the guidelines of Wikipedia. I didn't set them and I have had my share of grievances against what is allowed and what isn't. There is simply not coverage of the topic in reliable sources. PersusjCP (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there are no tribes (plural), one tribe (singular) that fit this description. Could perhaps write an article about the tribe if you can gather enough sourcing for it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Una Nation LivingWellat50 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of city-recognized tribes and definitely seems like WP:PROMO. Not only that, but the article's source for the only tribe being "city-recognized" had zero mention of the words "city-recognized" so it is definitely WP:SYNTH.

PersusjCP (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cities can certainly issues proclamations/give keys to the city for this type of recognition, and that's what exactly happened here if you read the city council transcript (Una Nation of Mixed Bloods Proclamation); it has no force of law and did not establish that concept. Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It RECOGNIZED THE TRIBE. Period. The city of Springfield, Oregon recognized the Una. They are the ONLY city-recognized tribe in the US. It's that simple. LivingWellat50 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did the proclamation create the concept of "city-recognized tribes." That's not an established term or concept used in tribal law. You are welcome to write about that recognition in the article for the Una Nation, but it does not warrant a separate article. PersusjCP (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article SHOULD be deleted. Until further tribes are city recognized. LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The transcipt says "recognized the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods". How can you misconstrue THAT? LivingWellat50 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced in the Draft: Una Nation. But that article keeps getting silenced. Not sure why, other than generational systematic racism engrained in US society. The US ignores the mixed-bloods like they do not exist. Do not make the same mistake. LivingWellat50 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until other tribes are city recognized • contribs) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "One city passes a resolution and it gets you a wikipedia article", isn't notable. Sure the tribe exists, but the term is not used by academia or any other form of government, so I don't see notability here. We could perhaps write an article about the tribe, or add a line to the article about the city. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have already created an article about them, Draft: Una Nation. LivingWellat50 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That draft also has mostly non-reliable sources talking about them, very unlikely to get published in its current form. You'll need books or newspapers talking about this group to get this into notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single act of one city recognizing one tribe does not create the concept of "city-recognized tribes" to the level that such a neologism should be covered at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not enough other than one entry. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Can be revisited if a movement of U.S. cities recongnizing tribes develops and receives WP:SIGCOV, especially if such a movement involves force of law and not just proclamations.

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Carr

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

WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient third-party coverage about her and her work to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the fourth is a single deadlinked newspaper article of purely local interest in the local newspaper of the city where she was living at the time, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix.
Additionally, this has recently undergone several days of vandalism by an anonymous IP who persistently blanked large portions of it, generally with claims that the stuff they were removing was "incorrect", but the quality of the referencing is so poor that I can't even sort out what's correct or not in the first place — none of the sourcing confirms any of the disputed facts, but none of it contradicts them either — and the IP may possibly have a conflict of interest to boot.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below) ~~and add morecites tag. The New York City transit artwork is sourced at the image page, so that source also exists (and sources for the artwork have been added after this nomination).~~ Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything about an artist with this name. Coverage used in the article appears minimal. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Meets the very minimum for WP:ARTIST. Work is in the Detroit Institute of Arts and she was selected for an installation in the NYC subway. Research was a little confusing. There are two artists named Diane Carr. This one was born in Pittsburgh in 1946 (don't know HOW 1976 got in the article as birth year). This [Carr] is a Michigander. A sculptor and collector, but isn't notable (by our standards). I removed the incorrect categories on the article and condensed the text, especially where it looked like the two artists' biographies were conflated. Welcime a second pair of eyes to check that I haven't still got info on both. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I am so confused, now I think the artist in DIA is the Michigander... gotta stop and get my facts straight. Sorry! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My forensic research shows that this article was originally about the Detroit artist born in 1946. She is listed in VIAF and has work in the DIA. It looks like the page was hijacked on March 4, 2024 by an IP. The article was edited to be about the glass artist. It looks like the editor also hijacked the wikidata entry. I think the 1946 meets notability criteria. I think info about the glass artist should be merged into the article about Broadway station (BMT Astoria Line) as it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article about her. I will be changing the article back to one about the 1946 artist. I will not invest too much time in this until I see some more pings here. Notifying nominator Bearcat, and other participants Randy Kryn and Oaktree b for consensus that this is what has happened with this article. Also any suggestions for DAB. Thanks! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roll back to the 1946 artist, maybe protect the page as well. The glass artist is not notable, but if you want a mention in the article about the metro station, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide WomenArtistUpdates, thanks for the involved research. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:24.228.119.117 for warning about disruptive editing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I added an unusual hatnote in the hopes of preventing future hijacking. I left a third warning on the IP editor's page. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per discussion above, the article was hijacked and content replaced with that of a non-Wiki-notable artist born in 1976. The artist born in 1946 (the original subject of the article) is notable. Netherzone (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edem Agbana

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country who aren't getting articles on that basis.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the seat, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most coverage I can find about him seems to be about his candidacy or him saying something. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was literally going to AfD this for exact same reason as Bearcat. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidate for office with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article can be reverted to AFD as there will be other requests to recreate the page a few months from now. In my view, he established notability after winning the primaries because of the circumstance around it. As he's not yet a politician, does he qualify for notability as a "regular" person Heatrave (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321)

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

Can't see any WP:RS explicitly records the event as "Recovery of Chittorgarh". Many forts has been captured and recaptured several times in the military history. Seperate articles are made whenever they are notable. As seems, the article is poorly written, taken the reference from broken lines from the sources. No in-depth description about this in any of the reliable sources. Fails GNG, and the title is a fabricated one. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could you call a historical battle fabricated? It was a turning point in history of Mewar State. I don't think it's Necessary to remove the article Sinsilal (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are very poor and unreliable. The battle segment has source by a writer who was a pilot and that too does not draw any parallel with any battle. Fails WP:HISTRS, WP:V and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I'm moving the article to draft again and I would add more sources and extend the article Sinsilal (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsilal, do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space nor remove the AFD tag. If you persist, you could lose your editing privileges for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources on Gbooks and Scholar. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- The creator of this article is found to be a sock of a common POV pusher.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source cannot be found, another does not entirely support the narrative, such as it is, the others are difficult to search for lack of page numbers. Brief, poorly written. Written by sock of a POV pusher, unreliable. I agree with the previous commentators. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Khara

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

Soccerway stub on a footballer that played two matches before disappearing. My own searches yielded nothing better than Telegraph India, which mentions him in the title and an image caption but only once in the main article prose (so it's not WP:SIGCOV), and TOI, another match report that mentions him, this time his performance wasn't so good and the article mentions some mistakes he made but doesn't go into any depth about him as an individual. From the second article, we can perhaps make a presumption as to why his career was so short (although this would be WP:OR) but having a bad game, on its own, is not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and I don't see any actual direct significant coverage of Khara. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One poor source with stats and no coverage on the subject. Fails notability and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above—one poor source, no other coverage, and no trackable stats over a four-year career certainly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Kathrin Dern

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

Fails WP:NBIO, apparently the creator is the subject of the article. Awards don't appear to sufficient for notability. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Music. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blatant self-promotion, the page is essentially a resumé and the subject fails WP:COMPOSER notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWorld Technologies

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, though it's WP:LISTED. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases, obvious sponsored content like this in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and on computing news websites, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotional and advertising purpose. Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company is born in 1993, their main products line is nammed eScan (existing in 3 wikipedia languages, (eScan [nl] and eScan Corporate Security [id]), type it in any search engine of the web and you will understand they don't need Wikipedia promotional nor advertising purpose. --Dadu (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Dadu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete – Shouldn't there be an article on eScan? mpany article fails notability guidelines as the sources are all unreliable in the articles as well on a search. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo page with no reliable sourcing on the company --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Local enterprise partnership. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marches Local Enterprise Partnership

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

Zero secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. Many sources are based on press release material and feature quotes from for example the Chairperson. Here's some better sources to consider. Research paper by the Industrial Strategies Council [8]. Article in The Business Magazine [9]. Some editorial content, but relies to an extent on Chairperson's comments [10]. Others [11], [12], profile but not totally independent [13], a little criticism [14], its launch [15]. It will be interesting to see whether the press features an independent appraisal of the LEP following its forthcoming closure.Rupples (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 10 March 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) 08:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Local enterprise partnership - On keep/delete, it is not a spammy business, for which NCORP rightly sets a high bar, but strictly speaking NCORP applies, so there is a touch of IAR about a keep !vote. I considered a weak keep, and I considered not voting at all and just hoping for a no consensus, as IAR is usually a bad argument at AfD. And, to be clear, if someone can make a strong argument as to why this should or should not be here, I'll reconsider. But to the specifics: Rupples provides a number of links, presented suitably critically (with thanks to Rupples). The first link is actually pretty good. The "Understanding the policy-making processes behind local growth strategies in England" studies the issues and contains a significant mention of this. It comes close to WP:SIRS as it is significant, independent, reliable and... well... it is actually primary in that it is research. The mention of the LEP is arguably secondary inasmuch as it is about the LEP - but that is debatable in fact. So it's good, but not perfect and not multiple, of course. Most of the others run into issues of primary sourcing, being news, or independence, as Rupples already noted. So by the strict standards of NCORP, we are not there. If we went with GNG, where sources "should" be secondary, we are in a greyer area. The point being that there are sources from which an article could be written, although not much information. Looking at the article itself, it's a bit of a disaster. It says almost nothing, and the list of towns is rather pointless. I think it comes down to WP:PAGEDECIDE. I would very very weakly favour keeping this over deletion, but ultimately the reader will be best served by just reading about the whole concept of LEPs. This page adds nothing beyond that, and, as things stand, could not add much if anything that could not simply enhance the LEP page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Local enterprise partnership. Difficult deciding what to recommend here, but concur with the comments made by Sirfurboy. There's insufficient independent indepth sourcing to satisfy relevant notability criteria. This could change should an independent appraisal(s) akin to an obituary be published after the Partnership is wound up on 31 March 2024.[16] If there is, the article could be rewritten and reinstated, but if not it's better left as a redirect.Rupples (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and merge to the existing draft, which I will carry out now. BD2412 T 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam

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

Nominating per WP:NYF. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Prabhas seems to have 3-4 unreleased films before Salaar 2, WP:NYF. Fails GNG at this point. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as Draftify only to find that there is a similar draft version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: TOOSOON. Not yet for mainspace. Maybe after the official announcement and trailer/first look is out. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I implied Draft:Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam already exists. So, we need to know which version of this article do you prefer, keep the current Draft version or move this main space version to Draft space and delete that version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and merge – the two pages have different content, and it feels that the two be merged together while keeping it in draftspace. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 09:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep Draft:Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam and delete the subject in question here in AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It appears too soon to belong in mainspace even though the subject could be notable in the future. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 11:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, contact me or WP:REFUND. But if it is moved directly back to main space, it will be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Atchuthan

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but this article was "sourced" predominantly to IMDb and his own LinkedIn and streaming copies of his films on YouTube, which are not support for notability, and even the three footnotes I didn't strip are still primary sources that still aren't support for notability, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy third-party coverage shown. And the closest thing to a notability claim is that he won a minor local-interest award that isn't prominent enough to clinch passage of WP:ANYBIO all by itself.
The notability test on Wikipedia, as always, doesn't hinge on saying that he did stuff -- it hinges on the amount of media coverage that he did or didn't get for doing stuff, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sri Lanka, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – after a close inspection, it is sought that heritage beyond borders may be a significant award, but not to a degree like a Grammys. Futhermore, if the award is not taken to consideration, the topic clearly fails notability guidelines. If the article would be kept, I would suggest adding the {{refimprove}} template or equivalent as large portions of the article is unsourced. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more sources Mfb2523 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There are Wikipedia articles of filmmakers that use IMDB as a source, for example Lenin M. Sivam's fourth reference is his IMDB page for his film "A Gun & a Ring." Also his third source is also his own IMDB for his film "Roobha." I don't understand why IMDB can't be a reliable source for filmmakers. I will add the {{refimprove}} template to the heritage beyond borders and other parts of the article. Also the Wikipedia page for 964 Pinocchio also has IMDB as one of their sources. Going back to Lenin M. Sivam's article, most of his Wikipedia page is unsourced with no {{refimprove}} template.

Thank you for editing this Wikipedia page and more importantly, thank you for the feedback. I hope to hear back from you soon. Mfb2523 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added a new source in Ravi Atchuthan's section "2014 - present: return to filmmaking. Also, I added [citation needed] in various sections.

Thank you. Mfb2523 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as "that other article is breaking the rules and thus this article is also allowed to break the rules" — that's a reason for that other article to get fixed and/or listed for deletion, not a reason for this article to be allowed to stay broken. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you for bringing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to my attention. Can you please let me know if the article "Ravi Atchuthan" is now up to standard? Also, should I add more [citation needed] to various sections. Mfb2523 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please let me know if the article "Ravi Atchuthan" is now up to standard? Also, should I add more [citation needed] to various sections. Thank you. Mfb2523 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's still referenced almost entirely to the same primary sources that weren't acceptable before — and the only new source you've added is one that briefly mentions Ravi Atchuthan's name without being about Ravi Atchuthan in any sense, which still isn't what we're looking for. We require detailed and substantive media coverage about Ravi Atchuthan and his work, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added another source, which is media coverage on the work of Ravi Atchuthan. Mfb2523 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added the {{more citations needed}} template above the article so fellow Wikipedia editors can add to Ravi Atchuthan's article. Mfb2523 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added another reliable from The A.V. Club that proves Ravi Atchuthan's film Malare Mounama, which stars a popular Indian actress Aunja Iyer. Mfb2523 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're still not getting it. The AV Club citation you added is not an article about Ravi Atchuthan's film, it's just a directory entry, and the other new source you added is just a photo gallery of people at a screening, neither of which are what's required. Like I said before, we are not looking for simple verification that he and his films exist, we're looking for substantive written prose content about them — journalism about him, reviews of his films by professional film critics, etc. — to verify that he his films have been independently assessed as significant by people other than his own public relations agent. Directory entries don't cut it, and photo galleries don't cut it, and primary sourcing doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the feedback, I will be adding sources in the next couple of days.

Also I added the

template above the article so fellow Wikipedia editors can add to Ravi Atchuthan's article. Mfb2523 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have removed the poor sources you mentioned the article has. Mfb2523 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete List

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

There are not enough secondary sources about this person for this page to pass general notability guidelines. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Comics and animation, and New York. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides work in animation I think that WP:NMUSIC#10 works. Also does not seem to be WP:BEFORE done since he moved and is in the wrong category. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not meet WP:NMUSIC#10 (a song/clip in a single TV episode is not enough and it's unsourced) but might meet WP:NCREATIVE for his animation work. S0091 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see the subject pass WP: GNG since the WP: CREATIVE aspect is sourced! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. However if you think this can be re-scoped and would like it in draft space to do so, just let me know. Star Mississippi 01:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dubăsari (1992)

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

The Transnistria War was not a war like the one in for example Ukraine right now, with battles, large scale campaigns and offensives. Transnistria is a small sliver of land along a river with like seven towns. The Transnistria War was mostly clashing in the streets or in the bridges separating Transnistria and Moldova proper between civilians, policemen and informal militias of differing ideologies. There were no professional soldiers. There's actually not that much to write about and there were no proper battles.

The only exception was the battle of Tighina (1992) when Russian forces crossed the river I mentioned before and entered a Moldovan town with tanks and armored vehicles. Reliable sources recognize this difference, we have 20 results for "Battle of Tighina" or "Bender" (the town has two alternate names) [17] and 0 results for "Battle of Dubăsari" [18]. This article is WP:Original research and splitting this small war into the few towns it happened in is not productive. Take notice that the subsection #Cocieri-Dubăsari area occupies a third of Transnistria War#Military conflict.

Also worth mentioning are the article's contents. The infobox says one timeframe which is actually a small fraction of the article. Most of the article is either clashes between civilians/policemen rather than a proper military conflict or larger political events. Some of the covered clashes aren't even about the town of Dubăsari but about the province (Dubăsari District). There's also a lot of unsourced content. The article is quite a mess. With all this I propose the deletion of this article. Super Ψ Dro 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Russia. Super Ψ Dro 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dubăsari during the Transnistria War; a quick search turns up no reliable sources referring to a singular "Battle of Dubăsari." Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 22:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it's worth noting that this article seems to be a translation of uk:Бої за Дубоссари, which refers to the event(s) in question as Бої (plural), and not Бій (singular). Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 22:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Phantasmagoria, I don't think the article is necessary. As I said Transnistria is small, and the Transnistria War relatively uneventful. At just 3,965 words, the article Transnistria War is very well within our allowed article sizes and a split is only recommended starting from 8,000 words [19], that's double of the current article size. Fighting in Dubăsari is not particularly singled out or distinguished in reliable sources, there is no apparent reason that it should get an article of its own. "Battle of Dubăsari" is an original research creation not used in any source (unlike the Bender/Tighina case). Thus I very strongly recommend that we do not split the war into fork articles like this one, which is also of low quality. Super Ψ Dro 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not an actual battle; the article as it stands is a coatrack about loosely connected events. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful, as well as additional thoughts on changing the article's scope via a move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude (building)

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

This was a plan that never actually happened. The plan had some coverage, but not enough, and I am not sure how ambiguous a name like this is for a tall building. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if referenced properly. It's a curiosity, even if it's never going to happen. Shows hot important the victory was to the Sri Lankans at the time. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is it needs another source to be clearly notable. It's not completely non-notable and it may already be notable, but this is one of those really grey zone articles. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those "proper" references can be located. Otherwise, it looks like this Keep vote is nullified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ironically the additional coverage you would need to find in order to keep the article is a source explaining the cancellation of the building project, and assessing the significance of the project's failure. All the coverage currently cited in the article are essentially speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL claims simply repeating what the developers were saying, which turned out not to come true. In its current state, it is a misleading article that does not belong on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, actual analysis of known available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Couldn't find enough sources, but draftification may be preferred; however the notability is dubious. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a 2023–2024 discussion on Skyscrapercity.com about the abandoned building project (with photos} and mention of a nascent new development taking its place, but it's in a discussion forum which has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, not a reliable source we can cite. (If you are curious, search for "Kotte | Baili Mix Development |Floors, Height-TBA| (Previous 96 Iconic Tower-Abondoned)".) At the moment the best WP:ATD that I can think of would be to merge to Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). But since we haven't found any sources yet that specifically explain the abandonment of the building project, none of the content here seems that useful in the context of that article. To Ouro's point, another alternative would be to mention it in the article Cricket in Sri Lanka. But that would be like a sentence and it would still be preferable to have a source verifying that the project was proposed and planned but later canceled...which I haven't found yet in ProQuest (although there is one 2017 Euroweek / Global Capital article about the asset bubble which mentions it in passing but not in a terribly meaningful way). As a side note, the former developer of the failed building project is using the existence of this Wikipedia article as a proof point in its portfolio (scroll to the bottom of that page). The responsible thing for Wikipedia to do is to delete. If the new development actually materialises and there is coverage, a new article could be created then; future sources might even mention the past failed building project. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Energy

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

There is a Turkish company called Atlas Energy (Atlas Enerji in Turkish) but this one does not seem to have enough sources to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Paramakalyani College

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

This is one of 65 colleges affiliated to the Mononmaniam Sundarar University. I cannot find anything of particular note about the College (except what it says on its own website). Newhaven lad (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University as we usually do in these circumstances. Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mccapra. Seems sensible, and there is no automatic notability for colleges of a federated university, nor for a university itself (for instance, see this AfD close [20]). Sourcing not there to sustain this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators – Heroes of the Colosseum

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

WP:EVENT/WP:GNG concerns: fairly run-of-the-mill type of temporary travelling museum exhibition. Most relevant online sources I've found are primary sources (museums/exhibition organiser) or opinion pieces largely from Nine Entertainment (WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:BOMBARDMENT). Fork99 (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There seems to have been quite some coverage of the Jönköping exhibit in local newspaper Jönköpings-Posten and in the local TV and radio stations. [21] [22] [23]. Not sure on my vote yet though. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Aazim

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

Poet doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV thus fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage about the subject in the sources. Greaterkashmir.com talks about his background, early life, and career. I find that it passes notability and warrants this subject to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is tricky to evaluate without the ability to read Kashmiri, but this article mentions a close founding association with Adbi Markaz Kamraz, and the number of news organizations running obituaries describing him as a major poet seems suggestive.— Moriwen (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No wp:rs, wp:sigcov QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sporadic mentions in Indian Literature over a few decades, which means that offline and/or Kashmiri language sources are likely to exist for someone who primarily wrote in Kashmiri. Mach61 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Muzaffar Aazim is a distinguished writer of the Kashmiri language. There are enough offline sources like The History of Kashmiri Language and Literature initially published by the Kashmiri Department of the University of Kashmir that can verify the notability of the writer. Munajikhan (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Munajikhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak keep: Moriwen makes a good point, as does RangersRus. I think this squeaks by on GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon. With socks and other nonsense discounted, consensus is clear Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Jarrah

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

As noted by another user, coverage does not extend beyond arrest and legal consequences. Significant coverage implies that the subject has been featured in multiple sources over a period of time, contributing to a well-rounded biography.

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Individual is not notable. Syrianpoet94 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Struck as confirmed sock of Peacefulparrot5, the nominator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for abusive use of accounts. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability beyond a single event that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck, Peacefulparrot5 is the nominator (unsigned).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage proving notability. 199.111.212.39 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP's 4th edit. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ genereal lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:GNG. Only noteable for a single event (arrest). Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have accidentally voted twice. Would you be so kind as to strike your vote? FortunateSons (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FortunateSons, user also nominated the article ~~anonymously~~ without signing. I would not be surprised if all opinions above are by the same person. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a gross violation of the rules. It would make sense based on the voting pattern, which is somewhat suspicious. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is a gross violation of our rules! gidonb (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Israel, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon, a target section that lacks detail and sources, and provides greater context to this affair. There is tons of coverage in Israel RS in 2008.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] One would assume that the Lebanese press was even before on the story. The international press picked it up in 2009.[32][33] The Israeli press didn't let go in 2009 either.[34][35][36][37] I did not see that the coverage was sustained beyond – maybe in Lebanon – yet the proposed ATD works in WP's benefit regardless of notability. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the arguments by Gidonb, we should merge to maintain valuable content insofar as it meets the requirements of RS. FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge its a plausible search term and Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon is an appropriate merge target. Ben Azura (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America Cultural Center

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

This building in Argentina article has zero references to establish notability. While it contains interesting details, the tone is generally promotional. After searching, found a few social media, and mentions with similar names in other countries, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific building. Article was created by a new user on 4 November 2009 (their only contribution to Wikipedia). Article was PROD on February 6, 2020, then De-prod on February 9. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references can be found using its Spanish name, "Centro Cultural América". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable in a Spanish language search, though most of the initial hits are to various Argentinian governmental web sites. Probably needs to be moved to a more common name, even if in Spanish. I've linked it to the Spanish article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Microsoft CryptoAPI with history preserved if a merger is needed. There isn't consensus for one here, but no one is contesting the merge with an argument that the material needs removed from the project-just that it's not suitable as an article. Star Mississippi 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CurveBall

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, the last coverage of this particular security exploit was in 2020 and it has effectively been forgotten since. As it currently stands I do not think it is notable enough for a standalone entry. Sohom (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Websites. Sohom (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft CryptoAPI. Not independently notable, but because this vulnerability made the news, it is WP:DUE to mention it in the article about the software component that contained the vulnerability. Jfire (talk) 22:13, 3 March 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, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. This article would focus more on how SpaceX has popularized Mars colonization again. It will take a lot of effort to remove speculation from this article, but alas, it can be done. It is a notable topic. (non-admin closure)‎ CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars

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

This article has deviated from its original purpose and is a good example of how Wikipedia's live documentation of history can go haywire sometimes. Originally, back in 2013, this is a place SpaceX Mars vehicle proposal named "Mars Colonial Transporter" ([38]). After that, there are multiple iterations of this concept which is best described at SpaceX Starship design history. Later on, around 2020 ([39]), this article list all SpaceX mars mission proposals and vehicles to go along with it. But by 2024, I've rewritten this article to try to emphasize about the relationship between SpaceX and Mars, because the launch vehicles have already being written about at SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Red Dragon, but I stopped doing so when I realized that this article will be filled with original research and press releases information. I think this article should be redirected or at the very least refactored in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Astronomy, Spaceflight, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per the nominator removing the lead sentence and then nominating the page, which may stretch good faith enough to end this deletion discussion of a notable topic and a very well-sourced and long-term article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are the one that is stretching people's good faith. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe both or neither of us is doing so, but the fact remains that you removed the lead summary sentence before nominating (even though you wrote the good summary sentence in good faith). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to go out and touch grass a bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bogart (per WP:IAR). Just trying to save a nice page with 58 sources that you helped improve Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I would agree to close this AFD too. Initially I think that this article will duplicate the scope of History of SpaceX and SpaceX Starship design history, but I think that this article could talk more about how SpaceX has popularized the ethos of colonizing Mars after decades of stagnation. I will try to find as many sources as possible before writing this article again to make sure it won't become another op-ed piece. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Darwin (given name). Star Mississippi 01:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deorwine

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

I had turned this article into a redirect to Rohan, Middle-earth#Horses and warfare on January 12 of this year, which was undone on February 29. I can't see evidence of notability for this name; it fails WP:NNAME and the sources I could find are limited to baby name websites and dictionaries, so it may also be a WP:NOTDICT fail. Alternatively, the redirect could be restored, or it could be redirected to Darwin (given name) or Darwin (surname). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was undone, because as already documented, it's an Old (ancient) Anglo-Saxon/English name predating (by hundreds/thousands years) usage by JRR Tolkien and other fantasy authors/creators that in fact use it (such as Warhammer 40,000). Wikipedia isn't a fandom encyclopaedia, so real-world takes precedence. Nevertheless, I think it'd be okay to redirect to Darwin (given name), as in its history there were only forenames (such as Robin of Locksley) with people using place names and professions at the end, which some became surnames later.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I just saw that Déorwine redirected to that, but in hindsight I should’ve just redirected to one of the Darwins. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darwin (given name) or as determined. Happy to go along with all that has been said above. There's no reason to make it a Middle-earth (Tolkien) redirect. If we have nothing more to say about Deorwine than that it is an OE name, I'd say it likely falls foul of WP:NOTDICT; but I have no objection to redirecting it to Darwin (given name). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Bachelor (Australian season 1). History remains under the redirect if a merger is desired. Star Mississippi 01:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Heinrich

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

Appears to fall under WP:BLP1E, and WP:INHERITED from Tim Robards & The Bachelor (Australian season 1). Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bachelor (Australian TV series)#Seasons where the table under season 1 already includes any relevant details; merge to The Bachelor (Australian season 1) would be an alternative. Agree with WP:BLP1E, and WP:INHERITED. Klbrain (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these references to the article and also improved existing references.

Doreian, Robyn (12 February 2022). "Anna Heinrich: 'Self-belief has been a lifelong struggle for me'". The Sydney Morning Herald. Nine Entertainment. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
Spira, Madi (24 October 2019). "Trial By Kyle: Everything you need to know". Who. Are Media. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
Coy, Bronte (23 March 2022). "'Can't do this': Anna Heinrich breaks down as she quits SAS Australia". news.com.au. News Corp Australia. Retrieved 16 March 2024.

Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to The Bachelor (Australian season 1). LibStar (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon. With socks and other nonsense discounted, consensus is clear Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali al-Jarrah

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

As noted by another user, coverage does not extend beyond arrest and legal consequences. Significant coverage implies that the subject has been featured in multiple sources over a period of time, contributing to a well-rounded biography.

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Individual is not notable. Syrianpoet94 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Struck as confirmed sock of Peacefulparrot5, the nominator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for abusive use of accounts. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability beyond a single event that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck, Peacefulparrot5 is the nominator (unsigned).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage proving notability. 199.111.212.39 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP's 4th edit. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ genereal lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:GNG. Only noteable for a single event (arrest). Peacefulparrot5 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) - Struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have accidentally voted twice. Would you be so kind as to strike your vote? FortunateSons (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FortunateSons, user also nominated the article ~~anonymously~~ without signing. I would not be surprised if all opinions above are by the same person. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a gross violation of the rules. It would make sense based on the voting pattern, which is somewhat suspicious. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is a gross violation of our rules! gidonb (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Israel, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon, a target section that lacks detail and sources, and provides greater context to this affair. There is tons of coverage in Israel RS in 2008.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] One would assume that the Lebanese press was even before on the story. The international press picked it up in 2009.[48][49] The Israeli press didn't let go in 2009 either.[50][51][52][53] I did not see that the coverage was sustained beyond – maybe in Lebanon – yet the proposed ATD works in WP's benefit regardless of notability. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the arguments by Gidonb, we should merge to maintain valuable content insofar as it meets the requirements of RS. FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge its a plausible search term and Israel–Lebanon relations#Alleged spying arrests in Lebanon is an appropriate merge target. Ben Azura (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Gerstenberger

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

All the sources given are primary sources from the subject's organisation, except for a mention in a local newspaper I am unable to verify. Gerstenberger's opinion is also cited in this CBC article as one of a plethora of Hamilton residents' comments on steel production. However, in my opinion neither of these secondary sources are notable mentions, and Gerstenberger's role as president of a local union and minor communist party do not seem to be notable enough on their own. Yue🌙 04:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Germany, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article in and of itself — being president of the entire international union organization might count as a notability claim, but being president of one local chapter in one city is not — but the referencing is almost entirely primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and one hit of local-interest media coverage in his own hometown newspaper isn't enough to vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Bearcat. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist). Suitskvarts (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf Gerstenberger has one passing mention in that article. In my opinion it would be setting a bad precedent to give a non-notable person a redirect simply because the organisation they are / were a leading member of has an article (especially when that organisation itself just barely passes notability guidelines). I believe that such a redirect would be borderline spam or promotional (WP:R#DELETE) by not remedying the same notability issue. Yue🌙 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekram Hossain

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

There is no claim to notability. The present sources show that the subject has not met WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Canada. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be an easy pass of WP:Prof#C1. Would the nominator care to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I agree about #C1 and he also passes #C3 (IEEE Fellow) and #C8 (former editor-in-chief but once notable always notable). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I stand corrected.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Stephens

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

Doesn't satisfy even WP:ANYBIO, citations only talk about the fashion week and lack of full coverage for the subject. Htanaungg (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Tennessee. Htanaungg (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Méhkerék. Govvy makes a solid case for town > league and I've gone with that. The decision to redirect is an admin close, but target is an editorial discussion and can be changed if needed at RFD or other channels. Star Mississippi 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Méhkeréki SE

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

So I am not really familiar with football topics in Wikipedia. But something tells me the football team of a village populated by 2,085 people is not notable. This article has two sources one of which is a general Hungarian football directory and the other is the team's official website. I don't think this football team is notable. Super Ψ Dro 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find much in the way of published sources about this team, at least in English. FPTI (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nemzeti Bajnokság III as possible search term. Giant Snowman 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nemzeti Bajnokság III: Plausible redirect target. DrowssapSMM 18:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nemzeti Bajnokság III.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Topic isn't listed on Nemzeti Bajnokság III, so we appear to have a WP:RASTONISH problem with the suggested redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nemzeti Bajnokság III per above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes, but DO NOT REDIRECT TO Nemzeti Bajnokság III, football teams gain promotions and relegations and should never be redirected to a league page. This is a floored redirect and should never be done. The redirect should be and always be to the article about the Town Méhkerék for which the football is from, plays it's home games and is associated too. Govvy (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Modern Russia

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

This article has been tagged with unresolved referencing issues for 11 years. I think it's now time to evaluate it for deletion.

The article currently has one reference. I've scanned Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com and can only find one additional reference in WP:RS, here [54] where it's mentioned in one sentence as the organizer of a conference.

It notes some WP:N "advisors," however, gives no source to WP:V if they really are "advisors" and that probably doesn't matter anyway due to WP:NOTINHERITED.

It's fashionable nowadays to start "think tanks" that are basically blogs or white paper publishing platforms and this appears to be one of those. (Insofar as it's something like that, it seems to be fine and might even be WP:RS, but that's separate from question of its N.) Its Form 990 [55] indicates it has a single employee who appears to be a grad student at Stony Brook University. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Russia, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. demonstrated to meet GNG by sources provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perlow

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not seeing how WP:BASIC has been met for this individual. Seems to be a lack of independent sources that I can find. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to now write on occasion for CNN, but no coverage about him as an individual. Likely not meeting GNG (if he ever did, the sourcing now in the article is thin). Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage or independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Adhi2004 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but a user has requested reopening the discussion as they believe they have sources to back up notability claims.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perlow co-founded eGullet, which was a very big deal in the food world in the 2000s. I think there is enough press like this [56] from the Hartford Courant that contributes towards GNG. I will try to find more in the coming days. Thriley (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post story: [57] Thriley (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely was a big deal. I was also on an episode of the Tony Bourdain Travel Channel show "No Reservations" in 2010, called "Obsessed" which was about eGullet. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6r1n72 and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUq0uCs3jlw Jperlow (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://nymag.com/tags/egullet/ is mentioned in places. New York (magazine) owns Grub Street, which has its articles linked to there. https://nymag.com/tags/Jason_Perlow/ is mentioned in places there. Lot to sort through to see if any of it proves Wikipedia notability. Searching for his name and "Off The Broiler" has some results to sort through. [58] A reliable source seems to consider him an expert in his field. [59] Jason Perlow Captures the Soul of the Big Apple Barbecue Block Party Dream Focus 06:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post article found does give him significant coverage, not just coverage for his company. Search for "Perlow" you can read him mentioned throughout, information about him given out. The article is hidden behind a paywall, so I did a select all and copy before the paywall thing came up, then pasted it in a text file on my desktop to read it. Dream Focus 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo article is about the company, not its founder, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It devotes a few sentences to flavor text about the founding, which mention the background of the founder, but this is passing mention. Simply getting your name in a newspaper article doesn't make you Wikipedia-notable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does have some good information about Perlow but we do need more sources. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Arguments to the tune "there are bound to be sources out there" or "he is just notable, for sure" do not cut it. The best one can locate is a Washington Post article, but that's about a corporation and not our subject. The rest of the items suggested as sources, e.g. something from New York Magazine, contain insignificant name-drops. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the above are true, except for the part about overall lack of sources. I failed to check old newspapers in websites such as Newspapers com. After the sources produced herebelow by Silver seren from that website, I find the proper suggestion to be a Keep for the article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources about Perlow specifically. Cortador (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a position on this article's notability, and I don't see any evidence of WP:MEAT at this time, but it should be noted that the subject wrote about this AfD on his blog https://techbroiler.net/my-wikipedia-page-is-being-deleted-because-im-not-notable-enough/ which was posted to Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39754156 where I encountered it. DefaultFree (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion seems like major WP:BEFORE issues. In addition to the two sources discussed above, there's these that were quite easy to find.

Perlow has been all over the news for decades for various activities and online ventures. Silver seren^C 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1(a) with no delete/redirect !votes. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Asphalt

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

Can't find any additional sources beyond the one in the article. Given the age of the Red Asphalt videos, sources may exist in print, but I cannot speak for certain on that. Either way, doesn't meet GNG as it stands right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Highway Patrol#Programs. BD2412 T 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The films have received quite a bit of newspaper coverage over the years. I just added information from three sources: "Asleep at the Wheel" (Los Angeles Times, Jan 1998), "Driver's Dread" (Sacramento Bee, July 2003), and "Gore or Emotion — What Moves Teen Drivers?" (Los Angeles Times, January 2003), along with the 2006 LA Times citation that was already present in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Education, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of RS citation has now been remedied and WP:GNG is handily satisfied (I also just expanded the article a bit more with an additional RS citation - a chapter in a 2017 Rowman & Littlefield book; while it largely an updated version of the already cited 2006 LAT article with some additional information, this is good extra evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage). Regars, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw for now per sources found above. Still a stub that could do with improvement, but notability seems to be met for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nad's

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a local business (with multiple locations) rather than a notable company. It fails WP:NCORP. Knox490 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news mainly comes up with product reviews. 1st hit is an interview. So lacking reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist Democracy Index (2019)

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

Also:

The pages fail the following:

Wikipedia:Copyrights, as it's a copyright violation (the material is copyrighted)—see the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for an explanation of copyright applying to statistics such as these: calculations which are themselves based upon numbers created by value judgements
WP:LISTN—a listing of statistics derived from one source is still a list and as such it must meet the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, and while The Economist Democracy Index is a notable topic, an individual report for, say, the year 2022 is not notable; there is some coverage but it is WP:ROUTINE
WP:NOTSTATS—while policy records the practice of splitting off otherwise excessive listings of statistics into separate pages and summarizing them in the main article, this is only something that can be done, but whether it should be done in a given case is a different question. In this case, this is simply a republishing of the statistics from the yearly report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the pages are based on a single source, and people interested in this are better served reading that source, which has additional explanatory content of its own, for each year, so inclusion of these statistics individually does not serve an encyclopedic purpose; this is different from the example given in the policy where readers can compare different polls from different pollsters etc. (there is an encyclopedically interesting collation going on, and that is lacking here). —Alalch E. 00:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Social science, and Lists. —Alalch E. 00:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and REVDEL – these are clear copyright violations because they are all based on creative content invented and published by The Economist, which cannot be found or looked up anywhere else because they are a result of The Economist's proprietary index "based on 60 indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture". It is mass copyvio and should be WP:REVDELed. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Afd is probably the wrong venue; the four pages should be hidden using {{subst:copyvio}}, and then logged at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 December 12, following the instructions at WP:CPN#Suspected or complicated infringement (that's the more conservative approach; I actually think it qualifies for speedy {{db-g12}} as blatant and obvious violation). Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS; you mentioned that it is a copyright violation, it should otherwise been G12'ed rather than revdelling. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the requisite URLs to fill out the db-g12 for 2020 and 2022, and by the time I find them the AfD will conclude as "delete". See WP:DELREASON#2 for how copyright violations are the classic deletion reason, irrespective of process used. If any admin wants to G12-delete all three remaining articles on their own accord, they're very welcome to. I agree that revdel is pontless for an article that should be deleted and I only requested it to test Mathglot's suggestion that it's needed. @Nthep: Hello and thank you for speedily deleting one of these pages. Does revdelling play any role here? —Alalch E. 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Diff/1214461808 to understand why I did not just tag all four pages with G12 -- one editor has now actually removed the tag saying "Looks OK to me". Which is exactly what I had expected would happen... —Alalch E. 06:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E. I did revdel at first then realised there was nothing left, so G12'd the whole thing. Nthep (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Economist Democracy Index (2019) has been speedied but the rest of the bundled nomination has not so I'm leaving this discussion open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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