Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 02	October 04 >

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 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. czar 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Zoong-sun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 North Korean World Cup Squad. Simione001 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Giant Snowman 17:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman recommendation to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Demt1298 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is likewise a stub. Thanks to GiantSnowman for providing the target link. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 12:15, 5 October 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. czar 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hill House Home

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

No evidence of any notability. Any significance seems to centre around a single garment that was popular during the Covid pandemic. Searches reveal very little of worth about the article subject, but more about the garment. Sources are very weak. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets notability guidelines. Widespread coverage for years in major news sources. Hard to understand the deletion rationale. Did the nominator make an effort to find sources before nominating? Thriley (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick Google search in the news sections shows a decent amount of coverage about the dress the business made, but not really the business itself. My recommended action would be to assess the nap dress's notability first, since that's what this article seems to hinge on for its validation of existence. If the dress can be deemed notable enough, then it could be included in a relevant section of, I dunno... 2020s in fashion? If the dress isn't notable, then the article about the business itself doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain more on your claim that the fashion store/brand is lacking in notability? While there is certainly a ton of news coverage of their Nap Dress product that made them big in 2020, there also continues to be significant coverage of them since, with that coverage focusing on what the company has expanded into beyond just that product, including plenty of news covering their physical expansion over the years as well. Some examples:

I'm seeing extended and ongoing coverage showcasing their notability as a store, fairly consistently having articles about them in both major newspapers and fashion and business magazines. If anything, the coverage has been increasing in the past two years as compared to earlier. Silver seren^C 04:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With recent coverage in Fast Company, Forbes, and other business publications, it seems to have continuing notability, being more than just a flash in the pan. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:49, 8 October 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.

Affirming Pentecostal Church International

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, per the reasoning of Dclemens1971 (talk). (non-admin closure)‎ JParksT2023 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are no reliable, independate, relevant, or recent sources on this organization. Even the website of the organization itself does not have any organizational information on it. It definitely does not pass the WP:Notability or WP:Verifiability tests. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Christianity, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per significant coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF: This source is written by William H. Carey, who himself was a founder of the organization. So, there are still no reliable, independate, relevant, or recent sources on this organization. JParksT2023 (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Carey material offered above is not usable, but the denomination passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in The Dictionary of Pan-African Pentecostalism, vol. 1, p. 4; and The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender, pp. 368-369. Moreover, per WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES, "Religions, religious denominations and sects are almost always treated as presumptively notable and kept provided there is reliable source evidence of their existence and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship." With as many as 21 churches in 2011 and "a large number of churches" according to Ellen Lewin, this denomination would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 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!} 21:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Point GO

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

All coverage is WP:ROUTINE and the article is largely WP:PROMO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Israel, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly minor product offering from an otherwise notable company. Lack of sustained coverage reflects that. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not enough coverage in the sources. Rusty 🐈 00:06, 10 October 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!} 22:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

József Somogyi (footballer, born 1955)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches have failed to show WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Demt1298 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 October 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. czar 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Daughtry

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his daughter or his protege. Reliable sources appear to only have passing mentions of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Muboshgu: A search in the NY Times archive: [1] shows he has gotten press for decades as an important community activist in New York City. Thriley (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times archive to me appears to be passing mentions. I lack a subscription though so I can't see some of them. I don't know what to make of this for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link for those with WP:Library ProQuest access. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different Herbert Daughtry. The Herbert Daughtry of this afd was 47 in 1978: [2] Thriley (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daughtry has received widespread press coverage over six decades. Meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Daughtry passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times profiles in 1978 and 1989, the New Yorker in January 2023 and August 2023 (both available on TWL as well), and the International Journal of Public Theology (2019). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the above mentioned reliable sources coverage in the New York Times, New Yorker and journals so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jhawer

AfDs for this article:

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

No sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since a couple of weeks after it was created, over a year ago. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing at all. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:NACTOR with her significant roles in Aanch and OMG.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the claim that she had a significant role in Aanch? The only secondary and independent source in that article (a review of the film) doesn't even mention her. In OMG, her role was not insignificant, but also not a major role. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not lead but significant, you surely mean? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/female-spiritual-leader-inspired-poonam-jhawars-role/articleshow/16587850.cms she; is obviously in the main cast of Aanch, given the character she plays, hard to call the role not significant https://www.tvguide.com/movies/aanch/cast/2000123959/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, WP:NACTOR does not mean someone is inherently notable. It means that coverage is likely to exist if they meet one of those conditions. The sources still need to be present and unfortunately they are not in this case. The TOI reference on the page is a short mention, the second is unreliable, the third is TABLOID and based on social media or information provided by the subject. The above TOI is more about the show and not here so just a brief mention and TV Guide only confirms a role. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator's reasoning.Charlie (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources and the subject is not well-known who has played a major role significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:13, 10 October 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 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HappyTech

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

very clearly promotional, extremely thin, and extremely vague as well. I also can't really find any good sources outside of the ones provided on the page. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:54, 7 October 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!} 00:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argy DJ

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

I can't find anything that suggests this DJ meets WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. A lot of the content and sources are simply verified through YouTube or AV content and don't go to notability. A lot of the content of the article specifies where the subject has performed, but the coverage only shows listings (not SIGCOV) or just videos, as previously mentioned. The one caveat that I have is that I am not able to find (and therefore assess) any sources that may be in Greek. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is kept, its title should be changed to Argy (DJ), because his stage name is simply Argy. He can't have that basic namespace though, due to the town of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek there is only o)ne source. Clearly, Delete Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - The notability situation is not as bad as it looks, because the article's creators didn't take the time to look for non-social media sources. He has a robust album review at [3]. He has generated some more media coverage in the form of interviews at [4], [5], [6], [7]. Unfortunately, those are all softball interviews from specialist webzines of unconfirmed reliability, so he remains largely unnoticed by the more reliable and objective music media so far. He might achieve WP's requirements for notability in the not-too-distant future but he has to get out of the esoteric underground first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 3 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Lucknowi (author)

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

Cut-and-paste move of declined AfC draft Draft:Anjum Lucknowi to a WP:GAMENAMEd title evading a salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's clearly only been created in the first place to get around the draft being declined at AFC. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 9 October 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 David Brabham#Family without prejudice against a selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content relevant to the target. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Thackwell

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

Not independently notable - inherited from her husband and her brother Golikom (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and New Zealand. – The Grid (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Brabham#Family per nom. Not independently notable. Frank Anchor 03:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this title is to be redirected to David Brabham#Family, the content should be merged there too, as the current relevant text is "His wife Lisa (sister of Mike Thackwell) also raced." which is substantially shorter than what is currently in her page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing really that's worth merging - a very minor racing career that's notable only because of her brother and husband.Golikom (talk) 07:21, 10 October 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. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Hofer

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

Article fails to meet the eneral notability guidelines for biographies of living persons. Also, the character description (in-depth) for the role (previously misspelt as "roll") of Dex Heller seems mildly inflammatory and violating of the encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy. Having one notable acting role⏤for which no stand alone article exists for⏤does not seem to be a valid reason enough for a living persons article to exist on the encyclopedia. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He had 3 significant roles in notable productions, and the article, very much a stub, mentions them. Add sources like:https://www.soapcentral.com/general-hospital/news-the-wonderful-first-impression-general-hospital-s-evan-hofer-made-emma-samms ;https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/general-hospital-star-evan-hofer-294979 ; https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/25/20666865/movie-review-run-the-race-has-an-uplifting-message-unfortunately-not-all-of-it-crosses-the-finish-li/; https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/run-the-race-2019 ; https://www.thelist.com/1029918/general-hospital-fans-debate-whether-dex-is-the-hook-serial-killer-or-just-a-red-herring/ etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nominator that it is an awful article, and that doesn't matter. Even an excellent article can be deleted if the subject fails general notability guidelines. Mr. Hofer is certainly notable. He has been playing a major character on an Emmy Award winning TV series for a couple years. Far from obscure, ABC is on of the most watched networks in the United States. Significant coverage is a given. Kerbyki (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Soap opera actors don’t get the same respect that prime time drama actors get, but they actually might get more attention and significantly better coverage. In this case, he’s a recurring actor in a major daytime drama on one of the biggest four networks of the United States. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 9 October 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 Hannah (name)#Fictional characters 2. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna (character)

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

According to my Google search, this character is not individually notable from the film or television series. Sources only mention the character in passing, or not in a way that would meet SIGCOV or individual notability. As for the sources in the article, they are also passing and do not prove individual notability. (Keep in mind that the character is a main character, so obviously there will be a lot of sources, but for individual notability, there should be at least a few reliable, secondary sources about the specific character and their impact, just in case any fights break out if I don't say this.)

I'd say a delete is best because whichever page shall this article redirect to would be hard to decide. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Television. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and/or plot recap. A redirect might make sense, but this is a pretty broad search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the most prudent choice here. I would pick the film, since it is the original work and better known than the TV series overall.★Trekker (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to Hannah (name)#Fictional characters 2. I agree with Shooterwalker that the article title is way to broad to be useful as a redirect specifically to the movie. Not only is it somewhat doubtful that someone would type this in as a search term, but the vagueness of such a search means it could be looking for any other fictional character named Hannah or Hanna. This particular Hanna, with a link to both the movie and TV show, is already included in the list I suggested, so would be a much more useful target for a Redirect to help in searches. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 3 October 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 06:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bianchi

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG (given most sources provide WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Switzerland. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if she was the subject of an entire book, that is far beyond routine coverage, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book in question is a book written by her [8], at least if the ISBN of the supposed book is correct. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the description, I am unsure. It contains a catalogue of her artworks (hence her listing as the author) but says it has writings from other people. The publisher also lists it as having an editor who is not her. Don't have the time to look into this right now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - source analysis indicates WP:TOOSOON for this artist. fails WP:NARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://recherche.sik-isea.ch/it/sik:person-4003308:exp/in/sikart/actor?0.0.type=actor&0.0.q=Anna%20Bianchi&0.type=actor	see SIKART		~ biographical information and images	~ Partial
https://www.ilterebintoedizioni.it/empatismo-scuola-empatica-movimento-letterario-artistico-filosofico-e-culturale-sorto-in-italia-nel-2020/			promotional material for The Empathic School	✘ No
https://www.laregione.ch/culture/arte/1701555/anna-opere-volume-bianchi-opera	?	?	? essay on image displayed at the Imaginary Gallery, in Florence	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can't be too soon because she began painting around 1981. I found her entry in the Swiss Dictionary of Art. She has exhibited, they report, 30 times, and there is a list there of publications, although they appear to be exhibit catalogs which might not be considered independent. The entry also lists some institutions that own her art but rather unfortunately they are mostly failed banks. None of her exhibits, from what I can glean, are in major museums; some are in small cities, and the ones in Milan are not the primary art museums. The book about her (or her art - it's hard to tell) isn't widely held in libraries. Lamona (talk) 04:51, 7 October 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. No clear consensus to delete after 3 weeks of discussions and 2 relistings without any inputs. Closing as no consensus for now (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln cent mintage figures

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

No evidence of any notability for this WP:NOTSTATS list, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Merge with United States cent mintage figures as a WP:ATD. If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Do you wish to amend your !vote, now that the target has been added to the nomination? Otherwise, this AfD could be procedurally closed with no action due to the improper mid-process scope expansion. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"improper mid-process" as in after just 5 hours in a 1-week process, and after the only two responders explicitly asked to include it? Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Zxcvbnm agreed to this inclusion. Once he does, there's no problem. Until then, yes, this is an improper mid-process scope expansion, even if it was one minute after he !voted here. You've been an admin, you know how this works. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion." You are an admin, you should know how to read. Or to keep such personal remarks which add nothing to the discussion out of it, as they are obviously not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for sparking the confusion/argument, but I agree with Fram's addition of the parent list. Both fail WP:NOTSTATS, as said in the nomination. Every single "mintage figure" list is clearly just a database and I see no evidence presented that they are independently notable, I was leaving it open for someone to potentially present that evidence. I'm not sure I'd agree it's "improper" since nobody else actually registered their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Glad we cleared this up. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, it should be noted that I split this article off from United States cent mintage figures per WP:SIZESPLIT. I have no preference for deleting or keeping the article, so long as the same is done to United States cent mintage figures. However, I am opposed to merging it back into the parent article. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added United States cent mintage figures to the nomination! Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 October 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 Gheorghe Hagi#Personal life as the outcome that participants would find least objectionable. without prejudice against a future re-splitting if there is consensus to do so on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi

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

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Romania. Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, she seems notable in her own country Natlaur (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gheorghe_Hagi#Personal_life -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same thoughts, I've seen Kira Hagi's article and honestly I think the Article still have what to be improved, as the movies she acted in, e.g. 167.250.71.19 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 October 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. Feel free to renominate in two months. Owen× ☎ 15:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Haojian

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of minutes in the Chinese Super League, as well as a loan in the third league. Sources are WP:ROUTINE and I don't see anything else that can help it pass. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Chinese sources (sports.sina.com.cn) demonstrate the minimum to establish WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:48, 3 October 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 14:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haciz Courts

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

If these courts were notable I would have thought there would be a Turkish article. Tagged uncited for years and I cannot find anything in Google Scholar Chidgk1 (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can see ‘haciz’ simply means foreclosure. I can find sources talking about foreclosure proceedings but not about a dedicated court that specifically deals with them. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know what foreclosure meant until I read the Wikipedia article, but there is a note on the talk page Talk:Haciz Courts#Wrong information about tr:İcra hukuku and that article links to the foreclosure one. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I’ve now figured out that there is a broadly related tr.wiki article that I didn’t previously find in my search, tr: Türkiye'deki icra mahkemeleri but unfortunately that is an unsourced stub. Still no evidence of anything called a haciz court. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 8 October 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 14:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Mendenhall

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

Non notable individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Alabama, and Georgia (U.S. state). Skynxnex (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR notability looks possible. I found two reviews [9][10] of the same work. There are Kirkus reviews, but they are in the pay-to-play "Kirkus Indie" program, and do not contribute towards notability. If NAUTHOR notability were found, then the article would need to be reworked to focus more on that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR notability strongly exists. Article can be expanded further in terms of this profile's notability as scholar and author. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete. I see no case whatsoever for WP:NPROF. Insufficient reviews for WP:NAUTHOR have emerged, and I did not find them on my search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding to comment explicitly that I don't think editor-in-chief of Southern Literary Review meets NPROF C8: it is neither a journal per se, nor well-established (founded in 2004). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No case for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Most sources currently in article are very short or do not focus on Mendenhall.

Cyanochic (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion. He’s not a full Dean nor a named professor; he’s an associate Dean. He’s not at a prestigious university. His legal career fails my standards for lawyers. 50 articles are nice, but there’s no evidence of impact, or citations. It’s evidence of churning, not scholarly research. Also, Why would anyone advertise his work for one of the most scandal ridden judges in recent American history? If this is kept, any middling Dean or school superintendent can can get an article here. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 9 October 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 Northern Line (İZBAN). Owen× ☎ 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Sanayi railway station

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

Turkish article only has primary cite and I cannot see any info there or in my search to show this is any more than a standard station - cannot see how notable. Also I don’t understand why “If there are truly no sources (including in Turkish) then this should be merged and/or redirected rather than deleted”. @Thryduulf:? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and or redirect if sources cannot be found. The station verifiably exists so should be a blue link as a very plausible search term. If it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article then it should be merged and/or redirected to the appropriate broader article. Given that this is a station in Turkey it seems very likely that the majority of sources will be in Turkish - just because they aren't cited in the Turkish Wikipedia article is not evidence they don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see yes redirecting to Northern Line (İZBAN) would be fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at similar articles on the line they seem to be in a similar sourcing state so a bundled AfD was possible, is there any particular reason you AfDed this article in particular? Jumpytoo Talk 01:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am looking at the list of Turkey project articles which are tagged as completely unsourced. I did ask about rerunning the bot which tags completely unsourced articles but apparently that would be very difficult. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I assume you can do a better job of evaluating Turkish sources than I can, are you able to take a look at the other station articles sometime in the future and see if they would also be candidates for merge/redirection to Northern Line (İZBAN) to help lengthen that article up? Assuming this AfD closes as a redirect/merge, you could likely WP:BOLDLY do the other stations if they also don't have the sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 18:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not very interested in that as I don’t live in İzmir and am concentrating on bringing a couple of other articles about Turkey up to good standard. I only put in the occasional delete request to relax after looking at stuff I consider more important. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you are going through the nonsourced articles so I'll add the tags to the other articles for now then. In terms of my !vote someone claims they can find sourcing so I will hold off until I see what they provide. Jumpytoo Talk 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Northern Line (İZBAN) (though that article also has its own problems). No evidence of notability for this station at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet GNG. Merging 2 sentences and 2 infobox params of redundancy/trivia would be pointless. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 8 October 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, WP:NPASR‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Water Films and Entertainment

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

insufficient independent sources and coverage, suggesting a lack of notable impact in the film industry Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep due to an inadequate nomination statement. What notability guideline does the nominator believe this article fails? "Insufficient independent sources"? The article has no sources, so a WP:BEFORE must be done and the nominator gives no indication this was done. "Lack of notable impact" is not a deletion rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 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 10:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navsarjan Trust

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

lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - grassroots is a nice way of saying local. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 9 October 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 Morris Minor and the Majors. ✗plicit 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boross

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

Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE with only minor roles in various TV and music. I can't find any sources getting close to discussing him. This is just the latest iteration in attempts to promote him as a speaker going back to 2014 (I've already removed that). SmartSE (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS available which cover the topic significantly, to establish notability. Ratekreel (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the subject is not notable for doing any of his various endeavors, except for Morris Minor and the Majors. I won’t be broken up if it’s outright deleted, but a redirect is a reasonable option. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Morris Minor and the Majors. Hmr (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect from me. SmartSE (talk) 18:23, 7 October 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 23:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Volte (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of paid PR, routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to establish the company's notability, as there are no significant independent, reliable sources demonstrating its impact or widespread recognition. Additionally, the content primarily reads as promotional, lacking the necessary depth or critical coverage required. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything useful unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage is signicant, see The Australian and Forbes. What's more, the articles aren't just promoting it, but suggest it is offering a unique way of doing business. Therefore I'm satisfied that it meets WP:NCORP notability critieria. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spinifex&Sand, the Forbes article is over 90% quotes from Olivier (or Oliver once, apparently). WP:ORGIND excludes sources with no independent content from contributing to WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails NCORP. C F A 💬 18:50, 4 October 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 Withdrawn‎. Per reasonable request of User:Left guide. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career Wins Above Replacement leaders

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

Delete - I love sabermeterics, don't get me wrong, but WAR is such a multi-layered statistic that I think this list is actually giving the wrong idea and, dare I say, even be misleading to casual fans and curious readers by using overall bWAR as its criteria.

Just a VERY short summary: there are three different kinds of WAR, with three different formulae: fWAR (Fangraphs), WARP (Baseball Prospectus), and bWAR (Baseball Reference). Then that further has three divisions with different formulae for each: pitching WAR, defensive WAR, and offensive WAR.

The list is making it seem as if one WAR is considered better and more reliable when, in reality, bWAR's formulae are debatable, especially with regards to pitchers. E.g. Jim Palmer would fall a 100 positions if you used fWAR here - 68.5 bWAR... 56.6 fWAR. Sandy Koufax would be on this list with 50.8 WAR (54.5 pitching and -3.7 WAR for his terrible hitting) with fWAR compared to his 48.9 bWAR (53.1 pitching and -4.2 hitting). Just two examples to give the disparity. I imagine a few people on the list would not even be on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NLIST having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See the following source assessment table for evidence:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
CBS Sports	We've established that Mays was an elite hitter and an elite defender at a premium position for a longer time than most players can dream. It should come as no surprise, then, that he ranks highly in terms of estimated Wins Above Replacement -- after all, you can make a strong case that he was the most well-rounded player in baseball's history, and they've played the game for a long time. Baseball Reference's calculations, to cite one source, have Mays with the fifth-most WAR of all-time: 1. Babe Ruth, 182.6 2. Walter Johnson, 166.9 3. Cy Young, 163.6 4. Barry Bonds, 162.8 5. Willie Mays, 156.2 It wasn't just that Mays compiled WAR over a long time. He did it with brilliant season after brilliant season. As our Matt Snyder detailed on Tuesday: "A season of 8.0 WAR is generally considered MVP-caliber. Mays had 11 of those, trailing only Ruth and Bonds' 12. No one else has more than nine. If we set the criteria to 9-WAR seasons, Mays was second with nine (Ruth had 10, no one else has more than eight). If we went to 10-WAR seasons, Mays and Rogers Hornsby had six. Ruth had nine. No one else has more than three." Whatever you think about WAR's value, you have to admit that Mays' dominance sure feels right.	✔ Yes
Yahoo Sports	There is absolutely a case to be made that there has never been a baseball player greater than Mays and it starts with Wins Above Replacement, especially once you take into account a few complications related to how it is used to lead the debate. For starters, let's look at the Baseball Reference leaderboard for all-time WAR: 1. Babe Ruth, 182.6 2. Walter Johnson, 166.9 3. Cy Young, 163.6 4. Barry Bonds, 162.8 5. Willie Mays, 156.2 Notice a few things about the guys ahead of Mays? We don't need to dwell on this for too long — you probably already know how much the following statement means to you — but it needs to be said: Willie Mays is the all-time leader in WAR among MLB players who competed in an integrated league and never used steroids. Would Ruth have been as dominant as Mays if he had been born 25 years later and faced the wave of Black talent that hit MLB in the wake of Jackie Robinson? It's impossible to say. But it's not hard to argue that the era in which Mays starred for the Giants was when the league's raw talent level was at its highest, when every young boy in America grew up wanting to be a baseball player and was afforded the opportunity.	✔ Yes
Washington Post	Baseball fans love debates, especially the ones we know will never get settled. Wins Above Replacement is a modern stat with imperfections. But, for today, the All-Time Leaders among everyday players make an interesting top five: 1. Barry Bonds (162.8), who gets a big asterisk from me; 2. Babe Ruth (162.2); 3. Willie Mays (156.4); 4. Ty Cobb (151.4); and Aaron (143.1). When you include WAR from pitching, too, then No. 1 is Ruth (182.6) followed by Walter Johnson (166.9). Close enough for newspaper work. Among active players, the leader is Mike Trout at 86.2. We know how great Trout has been. Of course, Willie Mays wasn’t twice as good. But – so long, Say, Hey – sometimes it seemed that way.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Left guide (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide, oh I know it is, and I agree that its notable, no question about it. WAR is well discussed in baseball coverage since it came into existance and there is an endless list of sources. But notability is not why I nominated the list.

The list has no context of what WAR is, why Baseball Reference WAR is being used rather than Fangraphs WAR and does not differeniate between position player WAR and pitchers WAR which are, indeed, two different things. I just think its misleading. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: Thanks for the feedback; since we both undoubtedly agree the topic is notable, it seems that basically everything you describe can be rectified through normal editing and cleanup per WP:Deletion is not cleanup. This can be coordinated at the talk page or WT:MLB, or simply done yourself if you wish. May I ask you to consider withdrawing this nomination? Left guide (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide, I'm not sure a few edits can clear it up but I'll be happy to try it out. So sure. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:27, 3 October 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!} 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Alwaye

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

lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish the bank's notability and significance in the financial sector Slarticlos (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it likely does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The bank's operations ceased in 1964 when it merged with the State Bank of Travancore, and there is limited independent, reliable source coverage detailing its historical significance beyond basic mentions. Without substantial secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the bank’s role or lasting impact --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just no evidence of any significance. If you find anything better, ping me and convince me that it should be a redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1, NPASR. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts

AfDs for this article:

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

A paid, lame article Slarticlos (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Software, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slarticlos, not disagreeing with your assessment of the current article state, but what is your assessment of the book chapter source identified by AusLondonder in the keep AfD discussion from 6 months ago? AllyD (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT due to the lack of a credible deletion rationale. If an article is lame, improve it. We would need a discussion of the sources identified in previous AfDs and why those do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 02:15, 4 October 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 WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Raja Group

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

Advertising, self-promotion, link to own website, The Economic Times link is broken Slarticlos (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep No indication that the nominator has conducted a WP:BEFORE. They have nominated 5 articles for deletion in 5 minutes. Also WP:NEXIST, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. 2405:201:D002:319D:6CCF:BAC0:531C:5B50 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapROS

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced since 2006. No evidence of notability. Despite a comment saying "If ever it is decided that the notability of this topic cannot justify an article, then merge this article with the EROS article instead of deleting it", I don't actually see anything to merge as most of the article is dedicated to describing the concept of capability-based operating systems rather than about this one specifically. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar turns up some sources, but no sigcov. (Note to future me or someone else: those can be used to improve the EROS (microkernel) article!) Other databases have nothing. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis I am satisfied with nomination and Maddy from Celeste's position. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dettric Jones

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, previously CSD A7. WP:TOOSOON - wait until Jones becomes notable. Prior versions draftified, WP:DRAFTIFY implies that this might not be unilaterally returned to Draft. Even so I suggest deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the mainspace : Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jones lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He isn't even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series so far. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Dettric Jones' Wikipedia page. I understand and acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the page's compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

Although Dettric's role in films and TV series may be considered minor, Jones is still a public figure with a verifiable presence in the entertainment industry. credits include:

- Ozark (Netflix, 2017)

- Raising Dion (Netflix, 2022) - Season 2, Jacob

- The Watcher (Netflix, 2022)

I respectfully argue that the page should not be deleted solely based on the criteria mentioned. Wikipedia's guidelines also emphasize the importance of documenting emerging artists and public figures.

Considering WP:TOOSOON, I propose:

1. Merging page with a list article (e.g., "List of American actors") or a relevant category.

2. Marking page for improvement rather than deletion.

This will allow the page to remain while ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC) — AnonymousContent33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully point out that the number of edits I've made outside of this topic is irrelevant to the validity of Dettric Jones' Wikipedia page.

The focus should be on the Verifiability of Dettric's credits and existence as a public figure, as well as Compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One episode appearances and uncredited ones do not amount to notability here. Sourcing is also not coverage beyond confirmation of these roles. Long way from notability. SALT should be applied Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Mark for improvement: Even a single episode as a supporting role contributes significantly to a show. Supporting roles advance plotlines and character development. Jones has been casted in notable productions establishing himself in the industry.

- WP:NACTOR: Criteria 1 (significant roles) is met, as supporting roles impact narrative.

- WP:GNG: Verifiable credits establish notability.

- Professional involvement in acclaimed series. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An un-named person on screen is not what we're looking for, notability wise. This person has NOT met GNG, as we have no stories in reliable sources about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD notice was deleted. I have reinstated it and warned the editor for the removal 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousContent33 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, no notability as above, repeatedly recreated.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage as a basic feature, and lack of major roles in films or networks. I would not loosely describe a bit actor as a public figure, because of the legal issues involved. The roles he’s played have been so minimal that none of them have a family name; at least one appears to be a red shirt. His three named roles have been on Netflix, which is not one of the four main networks. I don’t expect a newbie to know what standards we use, but everyone knows in 2024 that actors with only minor roles aren’t just given a Wikipedia entry. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 9 October 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. No clear consensus for deletion currently. The article can be improved, if needed, from old revisions, failing which it can be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Show (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

No appearance of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:GNG. Lots of information here, but trying to verify any of it turns up crickets. Article was written by a 1-edit SPA apparently to promote a 2016 tour, and has remained essentialy unchanged ever since—except for adding even more promotional material, this time in support of a new venture involving the band's front men. StonyBrook _babble 12:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After considering Chubbles' comment below, and after adding those sources and others to the article, I am changing my !vote to weak keep per WP:BAND #11, which states Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The Pittsburgh City Paper and Post-Gazette mention the band's album 'having gotten some airplay in Europe' and 'was getting play in Western Europe'; perhaps we can give the benefit of the doubt as to whether the station or stations involved were major outlets in Europe—I did understand it to mean the UK and Ireland, so a large enough coverage area is involved. And while we don't exactly have the WP:3REFS necessary to satisfy the letter of the above guideline and WP:NCORP, at the very least we now have the promotional material removed, with the rest of the content backed up by multiple secondary sources. The Woodstock appearance does seem to be important, although I'm not well enough informed about these commemorational concerts. StonyBrook _babble 04:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The promotional bloat of the article is lamentable, but that's fixable. The City Paper and Post-Gazette sources substantiate the band did international tours and got international radio airplay, which is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SUSTAINED and GNG. Public relations editing intentions are also rather conspicuous as mentioned in the original nomination statement. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interested editors may wish to compare the nominated revision with the current revision, which has just been stripped of nearly all of its content. Chubbles (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 3 October 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. and unlikely to overcome the issues leading to delete in draft window Star Mississippi 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam Metro

AfDs for this article:

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

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Also this article says no metro to Visakhapatnam.- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/040821/no-vizag-vijayawada-metro-rail-for-now.html. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much of this seems to be copied from a promotional brochure. A planned project can be notable but I don’t think we’ve reached that threshold. Mccapra (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To support the WP:TOOSOON criteria, the user cited an article from 2021. However, recent developments in 2024 indicate that the topic has gained momentum again. It is just that the article has not been updated and lacks supervision in addressing promotional content. [11] [12] 456legend talk 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely uncited and large amounts of original research. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even with WP:TOOSOON, I believe that some news articles are talking about it bringing momentum to the metro as . I also believe that the only reason that this article keeps getting nominated is due to it not being updated. [13] [14] 79lives (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and others above. The proposal is out there for 10 years now with no significant changes in ages. The references are mostly promotional and do not add weight in SIGCOV. TOOSOON is hence justified. It can always be recreated if and when notability arises. We aren't going anywhere. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 10 October 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 12:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navaratnalu

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

Looks like a complete advertisement. Complete promotional, appears to be a political advertisement done in favour of a political party and its leader.

Looks like a pamphlet for the political party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it documents a notable political initiative in Andhra Pradesh, India, which played a significant role in the 2019 state elections. The program, introduced by the YSR Congress Party, has had substantial media coverage and political impact, making it relevant and notable within the context of regional politics. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is indeed an advertizemant for mr jagan Mohan Reddy 2402:8100:21EF:9051:0:0:3D9D:BAF6 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Along with these promises, there should be a reality check on what has been accomplished and what has not. It’s important to keep a record of what a government pledges during an election and what it actually delivers after coming into power. I think there should an article for each term. RWILD ✉ 02:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL - we are not Ballotpedia, and we are not a web host for political parties/ platforms/ candidates/ campaigns. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DcVD

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

Article fails WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything of note about this. There are a few mentions about it in forums but nothing serious or useful. If someone finds sources for this please ping me because it will be seriously impressive if someone does. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, I cannot find notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i suggested in rfd that this article might have been useful, but its final word on the dcvd format is "it probably exists lmao" (and it cites this specific article, seemingly in this diff, as an example of flimsy research, which is really funny)... and also i guess the dreamcast junkyard is a blog, and thus not usable as a source in the first place cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as noted in the RfD, given the era of the technology it is very likely that the majority of sources will be offline and (and still within copyright) so no amount of googling will find them. This should not be deleted without even an attempt to locate them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that an admin of all people would make such assumptions as "there was not even an attempt to locate print sources". I am unsure what would give you the impression that neither me nor cogsan did such a thing, it is de facto accusing us of incompetence.

In fact I did trawl the Internet Archive and found zilch (besides, at least, other things whose acronym is DCVD but are not mentioned on Wikipedia). There really is hardly a mention of it anywhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll give you this one; nothing i said here or in rfd suggested outright that i did the big research, but i did as early as in my first comment there, and found as much reliable info then as vulpes and zxcvbnm did now (which is to say that i found nothing). on the other hand, you said in rfd that you found some potentially reliable stuff within 2 minutes, but nothing came from that, so... can i see the sauce? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point @Thryduulf, any ideas where I should start looking? I don't mind putting in the work but I will admit I don't really know where to start here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes Unfortunately I don't really either, technology magazines of the era may have something but as I don't read them now and didn't at the time that's just a guess. Patents (if the technology was patented or used others' patents, I don't know) would presumably give useful coverage with which to expand the article but may not count as secondary? If people write journal articles about this sort of technological development that could be another source, but again I don't know if they do. Based on Talk:Retrocomputing and Talk:Vintage computers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing seems to be the relevant project so folks there may be able to help more. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good I'll take a look later tonight and see if there's anything I can find. I was kind of amazed that there was just nothing when I did WP:BEFORE. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This era of technology is very well covered in the Internet Archive's collection of digitized books and technical manuals. It isn't mentioned once there. There isn't enough content for a dedicated article and I don't even see enough to warrant a redirect to another article by current sourcing standards, hence why the article is orphaned. For the sources mentioned in the RfD, both cric.co.jp and "The Dreamcast Junkyard" are not reliable, secondary sources. czar 21:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Penny Hoarder

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

Non-notable content farm containing primarily sponsored posts and affiliate links. See fine print "Advertiser Disclosure" on each page. History of possible COI editing. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability_(web) Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The pre-2020 era this describes before it became SEO pink slime met GNG just fine, but in the last four years it's just become a standard content farm. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 3 October 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) 07:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Donaldson

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2018. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only the first Google news hit seems decent, but otherwise seems coverage mainly for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR with her stage roles [15], specifically: 1. touring with The Pirates of Penzance as Mabel [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (multiple reviews at each of these stops). A recording of one of the shows was also released [21], the soundtrack of it won a 1995 ARIA Award. 2. touring with The Mikado as Yum Yum [22] [23]. 3. touring with H.M.S. Pinafore as Josephine [24] (not just the highlighted section) [25] [26] (recording also released). 4. touring with A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum as Philia [27] [28] "Forum Is Light Musical Theatre At Its Very Best", The Canberra Times, 2 April 1999 - Vincent, Jeremy (4 January 1999), "Revival revels in farce, not class", The Australian. She is the prime focus of articles Brown, Phil (23 July 2008), "Back to the start", Brisbane News and Kelly, Patricia (26 June 2004), "Family puts a song in Helen's well-travelled heart", Courier Mail. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please cite the sources (and add the missing noteworthy facts) in the article itself? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.181.197.42.215 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme; meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concurring with Duffbeerforme, Ssilvers and Schrocat. Tim riley talk 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HOPE (band)

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

I can find nothing to speak of to support the notability of this band, for which the cited sources seem to be scraping the bottom of some local punk rock scene barrel. BD2412 T 02:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 3 October 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 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Natashas Project

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

Article doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG and my searches have produced no significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH Demt1298 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Crime, and Organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 3 October 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 14:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SouthSouthNorth

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

Fails WP:NORG. No in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and South Africa. C F A 💬 01:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 African Entertainment Awards USA

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

Sensational and routine coverages. Fails the inclusion criteria for events. Best, Reading Beans 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling these two here per my nomination statement.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Nigeria, and United States of America. Reading Beans 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : This is a notable award per from the reliable source have been seeing so far on Google such as [29], [30], [31] and many more. It’s even a recognized African international award per the impression from significant coverage that are independent of the subject.--Gabriel (……?) 16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
African Entertainment Awards USA. Best, Reading Beans 16:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are routine coverages. They fail the criteria to establish notability for events. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. Best, Reading Beans 16:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although they are routine coverages when it comes to event like Awards but I see more than routine coverages on this award and they don’t look like it’s a paid publicity. If they look like a paid publicity or routine through out the source I would have gone for a Delete. But the fact some notable artist and public figures I don’t even believe they would be bragging about the award tells something about it. And I as well know that Wikipedia is not a directory before I gave my reason. Gabriel (……?) 17:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think the sources meets the criteria for events? Reading Beans 17:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base on per WP:EFFECT and it only boils down to Portable. I will be striking my keep. But i see the award as what might be gaining its ground in the future if they continue.--Gabriel (……?) 18:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is too early to have an article until comprehensive in-depth independent reporting is done about the award and its ceremonies. Best, Reading Beans 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete all. An award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations

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

Previously deleted under looser notability standards at AfD in 2009. Not every country A and country B combination is notable. Very poorly sourced, no secondary sources at all. Contains wild claims such as "political relations are close due to similarities between the 2 countries on historical, geographical and economical issues." AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and Cyprus. AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is based on 2 sources, 1 of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more sources and encyclopedic context. Bilateral relations between two nations should not be considered irrelevant, and without notoriety, the two countries have mutual cooperation agreements, and like all articles of embassies, consulates and diplomatic relations with the exception of a diplomat Ghirmai Ghebremariam, who opened a query of deletion because it does not meet expectations, the other previous ones could have relevance in the future, and if they should be maintained and improved, not redirected or merged, much less eliminated. Alon9393 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer lack of sigcov, in particular independent sources which discuss this topic directly.181.197.42.150 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks a bit like a WP:SOCK of banned Alon9393 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP's first edit was to Víctor Roqueme Quiñonez which Alon created, and then the IP suddenly appeared in AFD discussions of pages that Alon had been involved in, those being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kfir Tsafrir and this discussion. I don't know why the IP gave different opinions in the two AFDs though. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources in the article come close to showing sigcov, especially for a tiny country like Cyprus. Looking up the “Cyprus chamber forum in Riyadh”, I also found this [32]. Looking up the Saudi stance on the division of Cyprus, I found this (extremely biased) paper [33], which is definitely sigcov and argues that Saudi supports Turkey in the dispute (contradicting this article). On the other hand, this news report [34] suggests that Saudi supports Cyprus, not Turkey. The truth is probably a complicated mess. And this [35] suggests an electrical connection (extremely unlikely to happen, but it’s still coverage).

However, despite the coverage, I am not very confident that this article should be kept, since it has very little content that is both notable/DUE and verifiable. Diplomats meeting each other is usually not important enough for inclusion in an article, even if it generates newswire reports (like source 3). Worse, large parts of the article are made-up fluff (like the Cyprus dispute section). This might be a good case for a TNT, I’m not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 09:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient coverage and no notoriety encyclopedia. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verkine Karakashian

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [36], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sourcing is improved, now we have 6 references (one thanks to @Oaktree b's Armenian Wikipedia pointer), and hopefully notability concerns are now reduced. Also, I'm curious about the opinions @Basak and @Buidhe, who are experienced editors with contributions related to Ottoman Armenians on the English or the Turkish Wikipedia. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered by several additional Turkish sources [37][38] Additional Armenian sources [39][40] The main ref in the Armenian article is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that new relevant sources were added since the beginning of this discussion, therefore to me it is clear that the article should be kept. Of course, it’s possible to add more sources and improve the article. For example here, it’is possible to learn what were the important roles she played in her years at Güllü Agop Company and in Benliyan Operet Company: Women in Ottoman theater life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basak (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) --Basak (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with references including an encyclopaedia and a scholarly journal, and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 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. The consensus now leans towards a keep rather than draftify after the changes in the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deolane Bezerra

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

Refs fail WP:SIRS. Possibly notable for Operation Integration, but that would mean just WP:BIO1E, so fails WP:BIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Law, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing notable about her, other than being investigated for a crime. Svartner (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only created a stub so others could expand. The original article has 66 sources. It's not just a crime, she has a lot more to add. At least draftify again so I can work it a little more. Web-julio (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be your !vote to keep or draftify? Draft space is indeed the right place to work on an article when it is currently lacking enough sources. Please take this knowledge to your future self when working on other drafts. I agree that returning the article to draft is an acceptable alternative to deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above discussion. This is a case of WP: BITE. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is clearly notable for more than just her recent legal issues; see pt:Deolane Bezerra. Skyshiftertalk 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A really substantial edit went in after the draftify !vote(s) - still draftify? Or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about that @Bearian @UtherSRG @Svartner Web-julio (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to draftify. Svartner (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by drafting as WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why draftication would be needed considering the article's current state. It clearly shows notability and seems to be in good shape for mainspace. Skyshiftertalk 11:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article can be expanded by translating information from her pt:Deolane Bezerra article, which is more detailed. She also has articles in two other languages, French and Catalan, so I don't see draftification as an option. This article will also improve Wikipedia representation of the Global South. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the problems this article has are not ones that draftification is useful in solving (and it is massively overused at AfD), no one will ever update it if it is draftified it is just a backdoor deletion. She is seemingly notable for other things as well - just add stuff from the pt.wiki article. It's already better than it was when it was nominated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Bugshan

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

BLP supported by two interviews and a 404 link. No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Saudi Arabia. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - arabic sources exist. Plus a dead link doesn't mean that it wasn't a working source before Abo Yemen ✉ 05:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi if sources exist you can add them in the next few days without needing to draftify. Mccapra (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh okay i will. Abo Yemen ✉ 12:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Even if I want to draftify, here is the link for the second source (using the Wayback Machine)!!https://web.archive.org/web/20240220192740/https://moragboonpress.net/news2430.html 79lives (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources don't support notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't under the situation that this is historical, so shouldn't draftifying be the better option 79lives (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we see these Arabic sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as per @Abo Yemen so they can have time to find arabic sources. As it stands now I would vote delete. But I really hope Abo can save this article, let me know if there is anything I can do to help! Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problem here is notability and after reviewing Arabic sources on the pages and some others through search, I found that degree of significance of the subject and of role as business is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 6 October 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.