Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 15	June 17 >

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 redirect‎ to List of Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leneve Damens

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players Lots of coverage, of both him playing in Namibia and from his earlier career in South Africa, but I don't think any of it reaches the levels of GNG. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect obviously does not fufill GNG or SNG (pro athletes). Suitable ATD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: fails N but a suitable ATD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:12, 20 June 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Brown

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

This article fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTEWORTHY guidelines for WP:BLP because she is a local official who has not received significant coverage beyond what is expected for a local elected official. In addition, this article has in the past been suspected of WP:COI editing and no changes or improvements to the article have been made since the COI tag was placed on the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template, was not transcluded to a daily log, and created under an incorrect title. @Go4thProsper: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. As for my own view, the subject appears to clearly fail WP:NPOL, but I haven’t researched enough yet for a more formal !vote. --Finngall ^talk 23:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, Education, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local official. Sources cited are all routine coverage except for the NYT article, which mentions her exactly once. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and BottleOfChocolateMilk. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 22 June 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 South African provincial elections

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

No reason for this article to exist. User was BOLD in creating it, but there are individual articles for the provincial elections, and the results summary (which is all it is) belongs on the main page, where it was cut from. It also does not attribute the source article. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should really just be on the main article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the primary article is already very large, and it should remain mostly focused on the national parliamentary election. I propose keeping this article, and removing all the repeating content from the primary one.

If length is an issue, there are better things to remove from the main article than the results summary. That page cannot display endless opinion polls, various trivia in the leadup etc., but not display the results :) Greenman (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MapperGuy87 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The original article is very long and a page for subdivisional elections is common for systems like this. This page could be more in-depth but it makes far more sense to put a shorter summary (probably in a table form) on the "general election" page and keep the in-depth stuff here. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've assessed the situation correctly. There are already in-depth (or what can become in-depth) pages for each individual provincial election. This intermediate page serves no purpose. The summary that it currently contains should be on the main page, and in-depth coverage should be on the individual pages. Greenman (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm aware, this is just a common element of approaches to similar systems. There are intermediate pages to link elections on the same subdivision level; for example: despite the fact that pretty much every locality's elections had a specific page, the 2024 United Kingdom local elections article exists and helps link the elections. An even better example are pages like 2022 United States gubernatorial elections or 2023 Nigerian gubernatorial elections, these intermediate pages are common and serve a purpose. If we wanted to completely overhaul the 2024 South African election pages, these examples could be models: there'd be an overview page ("2024 South African elections" based on 2024 United States elections) with a tables and short summaries on national, provincial, and local (by-) elections; there'd be separate 2024 South African general election and 2024 South African provincial elections pages; and there'd be pages for each provincial election. This would shorten each article and avoid the current overlap of each page. Those are just my suggestions and probably too much work, but I'm still a Keep for this discussion. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems reasonable to have a summary article that keeps all the provincial election results in one place and links out to more detailed articles. As Watercheetah says, this is fairly standard practice (e.g. 2023 Italian regional elections). Number 5 7 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number 57; useful as a summary page. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 June 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. Weak Keeps and Weakish Delete but reviews tilt it over to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Lynn

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Guardian review and [1], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content. Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment? This is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 17 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Da Hero

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

I couldn't find much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ([2]) and Dawn ([3]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and edited by 39.34.171.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Avadh990 -- all blocked for UPE sock farming.Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on existing sources now rather than the editor or IP who started the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz, I had to comment this because some IPs are casting "keep" votes, potentially linked to a UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage as one can confirm at

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Storm Prediction Center days by outlook risk level

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH. There's no sources for the deaths and linking deaths to particular outlook days in a catalog like this is not something any reliable sources do. Also fails WP:LISTCRIT due to lack of an unambiguous criterion for including data points. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --2600:4808:353:7B01:6554:AF94:4384:BF19 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no longer contains wind, hail, and flooding deaths, title is very vague and main body of the list only counts tornadic fatalities, and finding new additions isn't easy per above. 32 deaths were confirmed from March 31, 2023's High risk, but it isn't included due to 6 of those being non-tornadic. The list only contains 10 entries per risk level, and Marginal and Moderate dont have as many because adding any more would require perusing numerous sources and that's not mentioning for some of these that their outlook risk levels were downgraded or even cancelled when some fatalities occured. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:39, 23 June 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 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE. As with sources per WP:RS; the one that covers it all are WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant markets to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting to retain consistency with other FWWC articles. The separate list is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information simply for the sake of collecting that information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per Jkudlick. Svartner (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another attack on a perfectly fine article about a previously broadcasted event. The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters noted that keep results are fine for individual years. This isn't listcruft, which is functionally WP:IDLI. This isn't a database, either, and it is very discriminate - I'm tired of people not understanding that premise at deletion discussions. While poorly sourced, it is very easy to find reliable sources which cover this like [4] [5] . SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this an attack? Everything I do is an attack, right? Do note that I have no plans to nominate the 2023 list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about you specifically. Lots of broadcast information has been up at AfD recently. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting: As it stands, this standalone article fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary coverage covering the grouping. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. See [6]. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 18 June 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. I see no consensus in this long-running discussion so that's how I'm closing it...editors can discuss a possible Merge on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 (film)

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

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more).[reply]
You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.

Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated, Shooting of the film "1905," starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed.The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she "graduated" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa.According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects.Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen.The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall.
The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands.Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo.
Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing.
The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries.

Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.

For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:

Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.

Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.") and/or WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ with the merge vote from ReaderofthePack and the delete vote from Timothy.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.

Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.

In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle[7]). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times[8]), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po[9]), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times[10]). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina [11] and Liberty Times[12]). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie [13]). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.

Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will just leave the discussion here then. Thanks for clarifying, Star Mississippi! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion is recently reopened on 00:04, 6 June 2024‎ per another Wikipedian's request. Since I consistently faced personal attacks and my argument had been constantly twisted, I hereby briefly summarise my stance and rationales once again for the closer or anyone else who may be concerned. Everything I mentioned below can be found above:

I have quoted twelve reliable sources (including five English sources found by Mushy Yank, and seven Chinese and Japanese sources that I found, as I can read those languages and the subject film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production) that provided significant coverage on the film's pre-production details, the political controversy surrounding it, the departure of a lead actor Tony Leung, and future recurring mentions of the film's potential revivals, which I consider to be part of its legacy. These sources are all from well-established media outlets. The English ones include Variety and The Guardian, the Chinese ones are from Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Times, and the Japanese source is from Natalie. All of these sources address the film directly and in detail, and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept.

My initial argument is straightforward, and all the sources I presented are verifiable. One source, the China Times, was specifically discussed, as it appears to cover the subject film the least and was excerpted from an interview of the director on another project. To rebut this, I actually posted a full translated version of the source (previously falsefully trimmed down). It spans a full paragraph, while the whole article only has three paragraphs, therefore I did not agree that it should be considered trivial. Still, I agree that this source, along with the Sina and Liberty Times sources, are a bit shorter in length since they are interviews of the director on another project. However, according to WP:SIGCOV, it is also acceptable for the subject to not be the main topic of the source as long as it is addressed directly and in detail. All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of Keep in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments.

And respectfully, I find it very exhausting to be assumed bad faith even after this discussion (per talk page of the original closer), merely due to my expression of disagreements with a Wikipedian. While I agree that my word choices may not have been especially mild either, I am uncomfortable of being repeatedly called out for being "dishonest" or accused of "pushing my agenda" to keep my "pet page". Also, just to keep record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario. Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty? Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

noted in the history but doesn't appear on the logs. Just don't want it to get lost. Courtesy @OwenX: Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. It’s a textbook case. Coverage is only that it was to be made and was cancelled. There is no significant coverage to meet the GNG. There is no significant material, because there is no film. There is nothing to merge anywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although WP:NFF states “films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles,” in the case of the movie 1905, WP:FFEXCEPTIONS applies. The topic of the film's planning and pre-production has generated multiple, non-trivial news stories. That coverage is, in my opinion, enough to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. AstridMitch (talk) 02:08, 18 June 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Pelau (micronation)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. While I don't have access to Micronations (Ryan et al. 2006), the CBS News article doesn't mention Pelau at all. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't give anything either, except, when the term "micronation" is removed from the search, a lot of misspellings of Palau.

Even assuming the 2006 book does indeed mention Pelau, a single book mentioning it (along with many other such micronations) isn't enough for GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. The Micronations book is accessible through the Internet Archive ([14]) and Pelau is not mentioned anywhere. Astaire (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Looking at the page range given (pp. 90–93), the book appears to talk about the "Principality of Vikesland" and the "Great United Kiseean Kingdom", but no mention of Pelau at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a hoax as stated above, plus the page creator had a similarly-named page (misspelling of another country) speedy deleted a month ago: [15]. I would say speedy delete if an admin hadn't already removed the CSD tag. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Mccapra (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both sources fail WP:SIGCOV. Numberguy6 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a hoax; no evidence for the existence of this micronation in cited articles. Regardless, fails SIGCOV. Note that Muhammad Luqman, allegedly an LTA, has made several other hoax articles on Wikipedia about different micronations before which were all speedied. Incidentally he has been banned from MicroWiki 53 times for the same reason of repeatedly creating hoax articles. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 11:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note ongoing sockpuppet investigation. This page and Muhammad Louqman have had consistent issues with sockpuppeting before. This should be speedy deleted imo 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3. It's a hoax. Get rid of it. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:34, 23 June 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers comics characters

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

FANCRUFT list that doesn't include a single source indicating notability of these characters, let alone indicating a necessity for having a whole list focusing on them; in contrast to a similar page for the film characters. Most sections consist solely of brief summaries of these comic-exclusive characters, if they include any summaries at all. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 16 June 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 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to tell the creator of the page that you nominated it. That would be User:JIP who made the page back in 17:32, 9 April 2005‎. Dream Focus 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.cbr.com/best-comic-transformers-ranked/ that gives coverage to ten of them found only in the comics. Any reviews for this comics or notable arcs would've mentioned some notable characters such as Rung. Dream Focus 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Of these, none are non-Transformer characters, and only five appear in the Marvel Comics titles in the first place. However, the source could be of some use at the main article about the Marvel Comics title. JIP | Talk 08:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as an indiscriminate list. It could potentially be a viable list, but would require a full rewrite to accomplish that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Character lists can be viable spinouts, but they still need to be sourced and have some kind of inclusion criteria enforced. This current list is not that, and is just a list of every minor character that appeared in the comic, most of which have zero context outside of a name. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are already other lists of transformers, and this one is completely unsourced. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 21 June 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 Momina Duraid#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid#Television: Producer -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 June 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!} 23:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Radio personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], and [[19]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure the nom did a proper WP:BEFORE search because from what I'm seeing this seems to pass WP:NLIST based on some searching. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 19:00, 21 June 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024)

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

Propose article be deleted or at least moved to draft. At present this article seems to be little more than a list of news articles with no wider encyclopaedic merit (WP:NOTNEWS). There doesn't appear to be any evidence to link any of these events other than a rather arbitrary time period that feels created by editors, which there amounts to Wikipedia assigning correlation where there may be none (WP:OR).

Given the contentious topic nature of the subject matter feel it's best that the article be removed from at least main space until such a time it's improved or demonstrates merit for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Politics, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discussed on the article talk page, multiple reliable sources referred to the incidents in relationship with one another and noted that some politicians reacted with the proposed legislation to enact harsher sentences for swatting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a notable pattern of harnessing elected officials. It doesn't seem to be going away, and has the possibility of getting worse, or spreading to other countries. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 108.18.142.185 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Maile, I don't see the issue resolving itself soon anytime either and it is not an isolated case Wiiformii (talk) 15:43, 21 June 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!} 17:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15292

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, only brief mentions and no significant coverage or indication of importance found. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:31, 21 June 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. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont State Fighting Falcons

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

They don't appear to be a notable team, playing in a small, regional league. No sourced info so not sure it is worth merging anywhere. Potentially a redirect to university or league. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairmont State University#Athletics. Almost all relevant information is already located in that article. --MuZemike 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NCAA athletic programs are virtually always notable. This team gets extensive and regular coverage and even some of the seasons for just the football team are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The athletic teams get coverage from local sources such as [[20]] and [[21]]. I'd say this meets the WP:GNG and should be expanded, not deleted. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11 and Let'srun. Article should be expanded, not deleted or merged. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11 and Let'srun; NCAA athletic programs, particularly at the Division II level, almost always generate significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan and Let'srun. This is a notable program. The 1967 Fairmont State Falcons football team actually won a national championship. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 22 June 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!} 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steljano Velo

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

Velo only played in the lower levels of Albanian football and doesn't seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. My own searches only yielded database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – What's the point of creating an article if the creator can't find any better source than, like, database and match reports?! Nonsense! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:34, 20 June 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!} 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Mueller (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is as a city and county councillor, which is not a level of office that guarantees "inherent" notability to every holder of it -- politicians at the local levels of government have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on writing and sourcing a substantive article about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city/county, etc.) rather than just verifying that they exist.
But as written, this effectively just states that he exists and verifies his local election results, while containing absolutely none of the type of content that is actually required to establish the notability of a local councillor, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and community hyperlocals within the county being cited only to verify that he campaigned for and/or won election to the job rather than analyzing his work in the job.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be written and sourced more substantially than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN - Vapid credentials, in the claim that he's won some low-level elections, but I can't find anything in the way of accomplishments. For instance (https://www smcgov.org/district-3), "We are working every day to improve the quality of life for all San Mateo Residents". Like what? What is he doing? Article was created by an IP's only contribution to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per the nomination and editor comments above. Minor official who fails WP:NPOL guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his local office is not inherently notable and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the office nor the office holder are notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:00, 19 June 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 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Stein

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[22]], [[23]] and [[24]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[25]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more people to participate in AfD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "oursportscentral" article is a rather typical "new job announcement" and doesn't do much to support GNG. The Vancouver Sun 2004 article is a single sentence. The Rotman article is not independent, it's one of those alumnus blurbs. While it might provide some facts it is a good bet that they come directly from the subject. The only possible significant article I see is the Vancouver Sun 2005 one. It talks about the subject as beginning a career, and given that was in 2005 I would expect to have seen later articles about a career, but I don't. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even in .ca sources, there is hardly anything. I agree with the nom's review of the sources, most aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 16 June 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!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[26]], [[27]], [[28]] and [[29]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 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!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[30]] and [[31]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 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 01:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senya Son

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

Russian pianist and composer. Compliance with WP:MUSIC has not been demonstrated. Some of it looks like a hoax. The article was deleted in Russian Wikipedia [32].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:33, 16 June 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. No rationale provided for deletion by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Choice

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

BBC Three was BBC Choice until 2003 Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coddlebean, I don't understand your deletion rationale. Can you explain why we should delete the BBC Choice page? Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tv channel bbc three's original name was bbc choice Coddlebean (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Why is that a reason to delete this page? Toughpigs (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The main problem I have with the article is that all of the sources given are to the BBC. If some decent independent secondary sources can be added then OK. Athel cb (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a cursory view of Google Scholar shows this appears to have received non-BBC coverage. If a detailed review proves that insufficient and no other independent RS'es are identified, then merge to BBC three. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: The nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion; for all that I understand, it might actually be a request to merge, or even an edit request. This should be closed as keep, with the opportunity to reopen it with a proper deletion rationale. Toughpigs (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#1 applies here as there isn't any rationale for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 23 June 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!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barrett (rock climber)

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

notable only because of a single event, WP:BLP1E should apply, wp is not a news site Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting criminal notability, and the pro rock climbing career is rather non-notable. I don't see the required level of notability to have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had tagged this page as a WP:BLP1E while patrolling and planned to circle back to it. This subject has zero notability as a climber (i.e. nothing in mainstream climbing media per WP:NCLIMBER), and outside of this case, has no notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is a case of WP:BLP1E, subject lacks previous coverage before the 1E. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 16 June 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. Discuss renaming of the article on its talk page. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyne

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

The article has no clear topic. It appears like it may be trying to be a dictionary entry. Sourcing is nearly non-existent. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling expansion of a dictionary definition. Athel cb (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like it underwent an edit to get more inline with other surname entries. I think the page should be renamed to Kyne (surname). I would also support a Redirect to Coyne (surname) if that article were fleshed out to include this variant.

Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing and sources support a short surname/DAB page. As we now have. Deletion is not cleanup. Guliolopez (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kyne (surname) does sound like a good solution Either way I'm sure there are other well known Kyne articles to be written, such as Raymond Kyne, Irish industrial designer, artist, stamp designer and past-president of the Society of Designers in Ireland, now called the Institute of Designers in Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since an editor unilaterally chose a topic for the article and replaced all the content present at the time of nomination, none of my original nomination stands. The replacement article is a fine stub. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concern expressed by nom was valid when the article was in the state that it was at the time, though it appears an adequate WP:BEFORE check may not have been done. It's a valid name SIA now and nom has agreed to keep so I'd recommend a speedy close. I'd also recommend moving Kyne to Kyne (surname) and turning Kyne into a DAB, given the other two topics listed in the hatnote, over which the surname does not seem to have prominence. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Athel cb: AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 18 June 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 List of international prime ministerial trips made by Lawrence Wong. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministerial trips made by Lawrence Wong

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

Merge content to List of international prime ministerial trips made by Lawrence Wong Gjs238 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you don’t need to bring an article to AfD to propose a merger. See WP:MERGEPROP. Mccapra (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude just do it, obviously these are the exact same topic and don't need a discussion to fix the second creator's mistake of not seeing the first page. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal. This was clearly the incorrect forum. Gjs238 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 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 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAP implementation

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

No real sources, reads like a manual, mostly copied from manuals? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a kind of essay or perhaps class notes or a course outline. Even with adequate sourcing, this fails WP:GNG for a standalone page under WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOTESSAY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article lacks sourcing, and cleaning it up would amount to blanking the page. Deletion is appropriate per WP: STARTOVER. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:45, 20 June 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!} 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Epesso

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The best sources that I could find in Philippine media were Dugout, a passing mention, and a Wordpress blog, which is neither reliable nor significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough reliable sources EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 06:35, 17 June 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!} 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kong-il

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

Whilst a cap usually means you pass WP:GNG, I don't see this being the case here. His 'claim to fame' is one friendly match against Vietnam with this source confirming that it was only an 8 minute cameo. This stats stub should be deleted unless someone can provide evidence that Kim meets GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 06:37, 17 June 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!} 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-myong

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

His only 'claim to notability' is playing as a substitute in one friendly match against Bangladesh. There is no reasonable chance of this passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC but I'm happy to be proved wrong if people can present significant coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 06:35, 17 June 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!} 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiew Araya

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

The player debuted when he was incredibly young but then disappeared. I'm struggling to even find routine coverage. No evidence that this complies with WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and the current database sources are unacceptable on their own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Costa Rica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – With only database source listed, article obviously fails GNG. What a waste of talent! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 17 June 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!} 06:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrit Sejko

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

Whilst I note that Sejko was extraordinarily young when he made his professional debut, I can't seem to find any coverage of him in Albanian media. Furthermore, I can't find any information about him after his debut; he seems to have disappeared. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as things stand. No objection to this being restored should WP:SIGCOV occur later in his career as he is still only 18. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Article obviously fails GNG with only database source listed. Corresponding article on Albanian Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub, no major edits since its last revision in 2022. I also don't see any evidence he'll become notable or gain recognization in a few years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable. Athel cb (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 17 June 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. Probably not a hoax, but no clear evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

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

Couldn't find a single reliable source mentioning a battle called the "Battle of Devarkonda." This makes it clear that the article is fabricated. It was created and modified by socks who were disrupting articles related to Indian military conflicts. The article lacks notability, and no sources cover this conflict in detail or refer to it as the "Battle of Devarkonda." Created by socks/continuous disruptors for self pleasure. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment- The repeated mentioning of "Muslim" in the lead itself is enough to identify the the target of the creator (ofcourse, the user is blocked).Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is a not a reason for deletion because it can be fixed through editing. In this case, however, notability does not appear to be established. C F A 💬 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is a hoax. It is briefly mentioned in some pages online, like this blog/article. Regardless, it certainly doesn't meet WP:NMIL with this little coverage. C F A 💬 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda We have seen numerous unreliable sources that discuss rewritten and inaccurate history, often contradicting well-established sources. I do not consider those blogs and write-ups to be credible, especially since such biased South Asian blogs are widely available online. The site linked above itself contains praise and many biased writings. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Source by Dr. M.A. Haque, lecturer in history, Regional college of Education, Bhubaneswar, Orissa on page 33 talks about the battle at Devarakonda. Page needs to be fixed with background where Bahamanis sieged Devarakonda. More reliable sources will be helpful. 2 other sources, I was not able to verify. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for notability. The first source is a paper book that I cannot access online. The second ref (Subrahmanyam 1957) links back to the article. The third source, a book from 1980, looks legitimate but only mentions the battle on one page (which you can access by entering "Devarakonda" into the search function provided). So we have enough accessible sources to show that the battle took place and a few basics about who fought and who won. I say draftify if even one person volunteers to make improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seem to be insufficient sources that discuss this battle. Whizkin (talk) 14:12, 23 June 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!} 03:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEEE-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Sammi give the subject WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 18 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:

this book review[33]
this obit in the Independent[34]
this obituary in the Telegraph [35]
minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [36]
this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[37]
this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[38]

One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 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!} 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [39][40][41] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([42][43]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [44] and a book review here [45] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please scroll to the bottom of the article and the Authority control databases. There are international results there, meaning his works are published in those countries. The Library of Congress returns 20 resources on his works. . — Maile (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. There are many ref. i added. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 04:13, 21 June 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!} 17:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clap note

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

I couldn't establish for sure that this is notable. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for many years, and there don't seem to be the amount of sources available to show notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources, seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references to this term that I can find online other than this article, no matches in Google Books or archive.org. Assuming it existed in the first place, it doesn't seem to have entered public usage. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:17, 16 June 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 University of Alabama at Birmingham. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added secondary sources.

Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

It has met WP: N criteria.
You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

Shortcut

WP:SIGCOV

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

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but in light of the newly added sources, I'd appreciate some editors reviewing them before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources as of this diff that should swing the discussion. Most of the secondary sources are (still) database entires, and those that aren't lack reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 20 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players

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

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer, I see your remarks as a Keep vote, no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I specifically didn't !vote keep because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a delete. The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable group of individuals covered by a group in reliable sources. The article needs improved, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 19:02, 21 June 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!} 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

This page seems to be almost exclusively cited to a random Facebook fanpage "ThailandBeautyQueen" and is probably the WP:OR of the account who inserted the links in a series of November 2023 edits, subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benebimo. There is no way to improve this without starting over with real sources, it should be WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main issue is whether this is a notable grouping that has been covered by independent reliable sources. Notwithstanding that, the entire page is just a table of plain information, which should be trivially verifiable. I don't see why this would fall into WP:TNT territory. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking into this article (which has been a magnet for sockpuppet and blocked accounts), it was originally at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Thailand before it was renamed so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hopefully, another relisting will bring out editors who have opinions about the value (or lack of it) for articles on national representatives at beauty pageants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same rationale as held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants. No evidence this set of contestants has been discussed as a whole in RIS, and the article is little more than a directory. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra. No evidence that these subjects are discussed in RS as a group per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cade

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

Not notable. A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage. Searches for sources produce more of the same. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think this one is an obvious keep. The subject person has taken part in numerous films, series, and theatre plays. For films, he had notable roles in Antiviral and Stardust, both of which were mentioned in multiple sources (see Toronto Sun[46] and IndieWire[47] for Antiviral; GQ[48] and The Hollywood Reporter[49] for Stardust). For TV, he was credited in a main role in Gangland Undercover (see Comingsoon.net [50]) and The Big Cigar (see The Economic Times[51] and The Hollywood Reporter[52]), as well as a recurring role in Blue Mountain State (see Screen Rant[53] and TheWrap[54]). For plays, the article already mentioned that he co-led the Dora Award-winning A Quiet Place, and I also found that he had a lead role in Free as Injuns, supported by reviews from The Globe and Mail[55] and National Post[56] which praised the subject person's performance. Obviously fulfills WP:NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that any of these roles are significant, and while “significant” might be subjective, the coverage you’ve linked goes as far as literally mentioning his name, or maybe saying “…and James Cade [is] also on board.” The best I can see there is “There's definitely sizzle between Cade and Prudat as Even and Be”. None of this suggests notability to me. Even the roles he is credited as starring are not backed up by sources which say anything more than merely confirming his name. — HTGS (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: You misunderstood my point. The reason I cited those sources was not because they have SIGCOV about the subject person, but rather to demonstrate that he had lead roles in those projects. The fact that he was credited in main role for Gangland Undercover, recurring role for Blue Mountain State and The Big Cigar, and was described as the male lead in Free as Injuns in multiple reviews, likely outweighs your subjective assessment of whether these roles are significant. This undoubtedly shows the subject person has fulfilled the NACTOR#1 of having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and stage performances, while GNG is not considered by me, nor the other Wikipedians commented in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using words like undoubtedly, but nowhere does policy say that a leading role is enough to confer notability. My read is that significant roles get at least moderate coverage. These roles aren’t getting even mild coverage. I am prepared to be outvoted though, that’s fine—as I say, “significant” is subjective—but it seems far from “obvious” or “beyond doubt” that any of these roles confer notability. — HTGS (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: AFD discussion is not a vote. But yea, multiple Wikipedians have found those roles to be significant, and I used words like undoubtedly because I did not expect there would be disagreement on this. Some of the roles are literally credited as main roles. I do not believe it is a subjective assessment, nor should significant roles be determined on subjective assessment. I beg to differ with your interpretation, no guideline defines significant roles as requiring a certain amount of coverage. As long as the lead roles are backed by reliable sources, they are lead roles. A lead role in a film will not be reduced to a supporting role simply because there are insufficient sources covering the film. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, should WP:NACTOR then say “lead roles” instead of “significant roles”? Because I assumed there was some distinction between the two, and that there was a reason the guideline says significant. If we are merely looking for leading or “main” roles, then we may as well say so.

I’m also curious whether you actually agree with NACTOR here, and you’re not just following rules as written? This reading gives notability to persons who do not gain any significant coverage whatsoever. — HTGS (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I think the word "significant" is used in a broader sense to include roles beyond just main roles, such as supporting/recurring roles, as well as guest roles that receive extensive coverage or attention. The reason I specifically mentioned "main role" is because main roles are usually officially credited, and this subject person has received such credits in multiple projects, addressing your doubts about whether the roles I listed were subjective assessments. And yes, as I stated, I believe the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and I agree that he has sufficient significant/notable roles that warrant an independent article, so it should be a keep. Arguments on whether there are sources providing SIGCOV on the subject person are more likely referring to WP:GNG, which I did not consider in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you think NACTOR has been met; I’m asking if you think it should be regarded as a useful rule here. The guideline itself says “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards … meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”

The roles at hand are still subjective assessments, because not every main role is significant. Unless you think we should regard all main roles as significant roles. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I do not understand the point you are making in your first sentence. As you have already mentioned, I have quoted NACTOR multiple times, so if I do not think it is a "useful rule", then why I would cite it???

And no, please take a more careful look at the guidelines. It writes significant roles in multiple notable [projects], not "roles in multiple notable projects that are significant". A main role is of course a significant part of a project. A film could not be made without a lead cast! So main roles are of course significant roles. Even if your interpretation was applied, the films and series we have listed all have their own independent articles, which means they are notable. So main roles in these notable projects should be considered significant, simple! With all due respect, I really do not see a point of ambiguity or reasonable basis for disagreement in this case, because you seem to have either misinterpreted or tried to override WP:SNG with GNG, and be the only one to identify the roles with subjective assessments here. At least two main roles and one recurring role on TV, two lead roles in stage plays, two supporting roles in films. Obvious keep, that is all I have to say. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Let's Get Physical, Gangland Undercover, Cascade and Blue Mountain State. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 16 June 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. Those editors arguing for Delete cast doubt on whether this institution is a "significant accredited college". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Henriksen

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Non-notable individual, run-of-the-mill educational administrator. No claim of notability (except perhaps for the Platinum Jubilee Medal, but even that was given to 420 000 individuals worldwide). WP:PROMO, reads like a WP:RESUME. Potentially violation of WP:COI as the editor is a single topic editor, and claims to own the copyright of a picture of the subject. Melmann 11:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. This article needs substantial trimming and rewriting to change it from a resume to a Wikipedia page. However the subject is the president of Northlands College, which appears to satisfy C6 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of edits towards WP:NOTRESUME; hope this is helpful. Qflib (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib Is Northlands College a “major academic institution”? I can't even find it among any of the major university rankings (but, it's possible I'm just bad at searching). Melmann 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically we look for schools to offer masters degrees or higher as one indication of whether it qualifies (this excludes community colleges). This school qualifies under that criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this entity the result of three community colleges joining together? In any case, what would be a (non-major) academic institution? Like a vocational school? Melmann 09:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vocational school does not offer graduate degrees (masters or higher). I would not consider a college that only offers associate and/or bachelor’s degrees and is not otherwise notable to be “major.”

There are a few R1 universities that started off as teacher’s colleges and only offered bachelor’s degrees originally. So IMO the history of how the college came to be isn’t directly relevant as to whether it is currently “major” for our purposes here. Qflib (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How an institution is established isn’t relevant. Public Institutions in Canada are established by law… passed by the government. There are numerous institutions that started as a college for example Yukon University that do exceptionally valuable work. 2001:56A:6FE1:B447:911:8C81:F497:9BCE (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Northlands is major enough to qualify for #C6, and we should go through GNG instead. All our sources are currently PR fluff, stories about Northlands, or stories about the one event of him becoming head of Northlands. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about GNG. But since we don't have a specific definition of what "major" means in WP:NPROF, I do tend to think we should assume that a school fits the criterion if they offer one or more graduate degrees, or if they are a historically significant institution (like Oberlin or Byrn Mawr). Of course, I respect your opinion to the contrary. Qflib (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it appears to be a conglomeration of three community colleges. I think we've generally held that community colleges don't count for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Northlands College is a public institution service 50 percent of the landmass of Saskatchewan. As a public institution it offers a comprehensive array of programs from adult education to masters degrees with an indigenous student population of over 90 percent. I think the confusion here is the understanding of higher education in the USA vs Canada. 2001:56A:6FF0:41DD:55A9:9553:A7EA:A447 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David, this particular institution offers bachelors degrees and at least one master’s degree, unless I’m reading this wrong. If I’m wrong, apologies. Qflib (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the individual is the coauthor of the Nunavut Arctic College/Memorial University Transformational Agreement which has been noted by numerous media outlets and leaders

https://higheredstrategy.com/better-northern-higher-education-strategy/ 24.72.14.113 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per David, I dont see this passing the bar of WP:NPROF#6 so we will have to evaluate per GNG. Another way to think of this is that if this person is notable then there should be no issue to pass GNG. --hroest 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Northlands' academic programs[57], it is clear that this is essentially a combination of a community college and a trade school. Not what WP:PROF#C6 had in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The profile of the person satisfies, WP:PROF#C6 section B, "if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college. 207.195.51.169 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a public institution in Canada. Serving 50 percent of the landmass of the province and it is an institution serving largely indigenous people. 24.72.14.113 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint George S.C. players

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

No evidence this list of self-selected players meets the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero notability, a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the top football team in Ethiopia, and is well sourced. I fail to see why WP:LISTN doesn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I tend to agree with SportingFlyer. I'm not sure how this can be see has having "zero notability" if it is the best football team in Ethiopia. It is also universally discussed "as a group or set" by nature, working it into the threshold of WP:NLIST. I think this falls under WP:BIAS to a large degree, as well. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club was founded in 1935 and such a list would purport to include players from the club's entire existence. There is a huge WP:V barrier that I don't see this list overcoming. How to verify which players played for Saint George SC, how many matches (i.e. who surpassed the 50-match mark, 100, 250 etc.) and when? To me that would seem equally impossible as maintaining and updating the list. Finally, deleting it removes nothing of value, as a category does the job much better. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments to keep are fairly weak: are there independent sources for the list entries? Maybe we can come to a consensus by remedying this apparent lack of independent coverage (or by determining that there is not significant independent coverage).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lists of people, including players of sports teams, must demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Upon review, the article lacks sufficient citations from such sources to establish the notability of individual players. While Saint George S.C. is a notable club, the roster of its players as presented does not meet the threshold for inclusion as per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability. Therefore, based on the current state of the article and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, deletion is warranted unless substantial, reliable sources are provided to establish the significance of the players listed. This action ensures the integrity and reliability of information presented on Wikipedia, maintaining standards of verifiability and notability across all articles.Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true - lists do not need to demonstrate the notability of individual items. Furthermore there's plenty of sources in the article such as [58] which clearly shows by listing all of the Ugandans which have played for the club that the information is available, probably in Amharic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yakov-kobi: Please stop posting AI-generated comments in AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:53, 22 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drafitification? Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute most. Giant Snowman 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career Aren't we looking for WP:SIGCOV? The two sources you mention are routine coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not be much to the article but satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Does it? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Robby.is.on, I didn't know I have to answer to you WP:BADGER? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course you don't. But it's not particularly constructive to state that WP:GNG are met when so far nobody has indicated WP:SIGCOV exists. In my experience, articles often get deleted when the assertion "Satisfies WP:GNG" is not backed up. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. @Robby.is.on MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – The two articles linked by GiantSnowman here are routine coverage. Of the five sources in the article three are database entries, two are from AFC Wimbledon and Woking, clubs the player has played for. So far, we don't have anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing as no consensus--without additional good arguments I think that this is where this will end up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source is a database, the second is an interview, the third is all of two sentences of routine transactional coverage, and the final two sources are more stats databases. The sources provided in this discussion are likewise just a few sentences about a couple of matches, and can hardly be called in depth or significant. Bottom line, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG in the article, and I don't see anything better elsewhere. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 16 June 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!} 01:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ntokozo Vidima

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite a bit of coverage, but not really enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 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!} 01:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Dávila

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

Reserve goalkeeper who made three top-flight appearances in Peru before disappearing. No evidence of notability. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:09, 16 June 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!} 00:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Cabel

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as this young footballer's career is mostly confined to small clubs. I don't see any evidence that he'll gain recognization or be notable in the future. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 18 June 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.