Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 7

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

The result was merge‎ to Internet Access and Training Program as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet (Central Asia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If there is a possibility of a meaningful article then I think before that, one must write a section at Internet in Kazakhstan. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect into/to Internet Access and Training Program (IATP); and some content (if secondary sources are found) to specific sections such as an early history section of Internet in Kazakhstan, as Ratnahastin suggested, because Internet history as a whole is an encyclopedic topic, even if "the Central Asian Freenets" does not appear to be well-defined as a separate topic. While the IATP article itself needs proper sources, these clearly exist; academic sources for IATP are easy to find, e.g. Uni of Washington 2008 ; Advances in Library Administration and Organization 2009 ; conf proceedings 2003 ; conf proceedings 2003 . The IATP's specific use of the "Freenet" name is quite likely notable within that context. I merged the Armenia info into Telecommunications in Armenia#Dial-up. The USAID role (its own POV on its role) in early 2000s internet development in these countries is only one side of the story, but there's no point in omitting it from this encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 00:07, 27 October 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) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is not ready for Wikipedia main space, As meintioned there is no reliable sources SATavr (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) SATavr[reply]

Merge to IATP for the well-stated reasons given above. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here is one source although it is old: https://www.rferl.org/a/1084791.html 4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 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. Numerically there were more keep !votes, however the evidence of WP:CANVASS, and the less in-depth nature of the arguments, meant they could not be weighted so heavily. However, even having made this adjustment, the discussion ultimately comes down to whether or not the coverage of the subject is WP:SIGCOV or not, and whether the BAFTA Scotland Audience Awards are a significant enough award or not, and on this there was no agreement. The equivocal nature of the discussion here was reflected even in the "~partial" label used for the some of the sources by the nominator. The fact that there have only been keep !votes in the past week also makes this unlikely to pass.

If this is to be renominated, I suggest analysing the sources again and coming down decisively in the nomination one way or the other on whether they really do or do not support notability: "partial notability" is not something known to our PAGs. FOARP (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Storrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG. None of the article's current sources contribute to notability, all being interviews, promotional pieces about the subject's work, or passing mentions. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage in a BEFORE search. Perhaps a small amount of the content could be merged into her mother's page (Janey Godley) but most of it is off-topic there. CodeTalker (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source assessment table of the article's current sources.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:CodeTalker

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15442369.ashley-storrie-daughter-comedy-legend---taking-game	Source is an interview with the subject			✘ No
https://list.co.uk/news/10027/interview-ashley-storrie-i-have-been-known-to-go-a-bit-tonto	Source is an interview with the subject		~	✘ No
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/15443896.ashley-storrie-on-being-the-daughter-of-a-comedy-legend-and-taking-her-on-at-her-own-game/	Source is an interview with the subject			✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/1999/aug/16/artsfeatures1	~ Source is mostly quotes from the subject, with a few sentences of analysis		~	~ Partial
https://cmmanagement.co.uk/talent/ashley-storrie/	Source appears to be a blurb from the subject's management company			✘ No
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/meet-tanya-potter-harrys-long-12110480			Source is a short review of a video produced by the subject	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00037wr	~		Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17765419.scotlands-best-talent-celebrates-latest-herald-culture-awards/			Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name	✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2020/09/23/46953/2020_scottish_comedy_award_winners_revealed			Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name	✘ No
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/comedian-ashley-storrie/	~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis		~	~ Partial
https://sundaypost.com/fp/ashley-storrie-dinosaur/	~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis		~	~ Partial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gx7g	~		Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://dabsterproductions.com/projects/ashley-storrie/	~		Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2024/10/02/56719/four_scottish_bafta_nods_for_ashley_storrie%E2%80%99s_dinosaur			Source is about an award won by a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://thinkingautismguide.com/2024/04/talking-with-dinosaur-star-and-co-creator-ashley-storrie.html	Source is an interview with the subject			✘ No
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}}.

CodeTalker (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is notable, and has been in the public eye with cocomitant media attention for decades. Youngest Edinburgh Fringe performer with her own show, BBC presenter, co-creator and star of a BBC television show. The article should be retained.

@CodeTalker has admitted on the article talk page to not knowing who the subject is -- all the other editors of the page at least know that -- and the amount of effort he (it just has to be a he) is expending here is concerning. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker I’m not sure you fully understand how to analyse and create a source assessment table. All the columns, except for the one on reliability, seem to focus on fault analysis (most). Could you clarify the criteria you’re using for these attributions? I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the concepts of "significant coverage," "reliability," and "independence," as well as how these factors contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Understanding these elements is essential for proper source evaluation. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was originally a redirect to Godley's page. Part of why I never actually finished drafting the article was because pretty much everything I was finding was interviews and the likes. Also @Lloyd Wood:, please bear in mind WP:CANVASS. Posting heavily-worded comments on other Wikipedias as ye did here tends to be frowned upon CiphriusKane (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on source analysis. Her being the youngest Edinburgh fringe performer (what an obscure claim to notability), alongside hosting a BBC tv show does not create notability, sourcing does. Also @Llyod Wood I advise you to keep discussion focused on the subject and her notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the table indicates three sources which the nom has grudgingly labelled 'partial' when it appears to be 'yes', has dismissed three as non-independent due to containing content of an interview but are actually standard articles focused purely on the subject over which she presumably had no editorial control, and has misrepresented one on 'an award won by a show that the subject appears in', it was actually a nomination but in fact three nominations as writer, actor and for the show itself. Based on the criteria (interviews don't count, their shows and even awards for their shows don't count as only a passing mention / not notable in itself), it's difficult to imagine how any comedian bio meets the threshold of inclusion. WP:ENTERTAINER states "Such a person may be considered notable if; The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" - the subject appears to meet all three of the above requirements to an extent, although no single one emphatically.Crowsus (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Edinburgh Fringe example was just to show that the subject has been in the public eye for decades. The subject has hosted multiple BBC radio shows and has starred in multiple BBC television and radio shows, so @Traumnovelle's description was misleading. Speaking of accuracy, @Traumnovelle do note your typo of my name. Lloyd Wood (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the assessment by @Crowsus. Storrie would not have had editorial control over interviews with her, the sources of those interview articles are independent. It's also notable that these major media outlets (national newspapers, etc.) thought that that the subject was notable enough to be worth interviewing in the first place. Those sources are good. Lloyd Wood (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview published by the interviewer is still an interview and not independent of the interviewee. CodeTalker (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reject interviews, even though the interview format is standard for actors, and for standup comics, where words matter, and the comic's opinions and experiences are entirely relevant to the matter at hand. Interviewed repeatedly by national media? That's notable, and the content will have been factchecked before publication.

Yet you also reject articles about awards won by work done by the subject, simply because the subject... actually appeared in the award-winning work that they did?

Being nominated for and winning awards in her chosen field -- for writing and performing -- is notable. Laudable, too. Just out of curiosity, how many awards have you won?

Your chosen criteria and your interpretation of them are... strange. If I look at the table you made up, I see a lot of green ticks, and a whole lot of your nitpicking. Lloyd Wood (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be used as a source, but generally isn’t used to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (as WP:ATD) Delete for now. While I would expect that she will someday become WP:NOTABLE that is not quite today, she is WP:BAREBLP. She has been a prolific entertainer for many years, but length of years is not sufficient enough. As per WP:NACTOR it requires significant roles in multiple noteworthy shows, and from what I can tell, Dinosaur (TV series) is the only one that fits that criteria. No other shows fit WP:N. While she has been nominated for an award, she didn't win WP:RUNNERUP. While her public life about being on the autism spectrum is admirable, it is hardly a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" WP:NACTOR. Arguably what brought her the most notability is her mother, Janey Godley, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Not inherited also applies to the BBC radios shows; the channel is noteworthy, but the program itself is not. I'm not seeing any coverage that counts as WP:SECOND where "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Rather the bulk is simply coverage of interviews or self-promotion (ie channel listings, agent website, etc). About the only actual secondary article talks briefly about her award nomination, but that really just becomes a reliable source reference that she received an award nomination. Also looking at WP:DIRECTOR, as an alternative criterion to NACTOR, this article seems to also fail all of those examples as well. All that being said, I would not be surprised if one day she does truly become a notable figure, and she will quite possibly check all or more of these boxes, but right now she does not yet pass the criteria for inclusion. TiggerJay (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge/Redirect from delete, but otherwise my rationale for why it shouldn't YET be an article still remains. TiggerJay (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comparison research of the other actors involved in Dinosaur (TV series) shows how every one that has an article clearly exceeds notability. Aside from that one TV shows, the only other article which Storrie actual professional work that meets notability guidelines appears to be when she was a child, at 4 years old in a commercial. Everything else is references to very broad categories -- such as Edinburgh Festival Fringe which in 2024 had over 3,317 different shows -- being a part of such a massive festival isn't noteworthy. The same goes with simply being a comedian, appearing on a radio show, etc. Now perhaps there is a case that one or more of those might be notable, but I couldn't find anything that makes a radio talk/music show that is on a 22:00 until 0100 anything of significant notability. Compare that with David Carlyle with 5 notable films, 2 BAFTA noms, winner of several awards. Or Lorn Macdonald with 2 movies and several tv shows. Or Greg Hemphill undisputedly notable, and a article and IMDB profile to show for it. Ben Green (comedian) who is another comedian, has over a 22 in his filmography. Or Sally Howitt who has been in a reoccurring role since 2003 on the award winning River City, plus 5 other shows. Or Sanjeev Kohli another actor/comedian with a long history. Also most of these have far less references, but far more checkboxes when it comes to notability criteria for actors/entertainers/etc. By comparison this just seems too soon for Storrie. TiggerJay (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Television, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG. Like Crowsus, I find the characterisation column in the table rather suspect, ditto some of the rationales behind the "independent" column. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the event that it's determined she fails GNG, would a redirect to Janey Godley (as it was originally) or Dinosaur (TV series) be a suitable WP:ATD? It stood as a redirect for 3 years before this bourach CiphriusKane (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely I would support a redirect to either, and even merging some of the content. Again, I would say she will probably WP:CRYSTAL be WP:GNG in the near future, but not yet, and certainly not by the references in the article thus far. TiggerJay (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "not by the references in the article thus far": then you need to learn what AfD is about. We should not be voting on the 'references in the article thus far', but in what information is in reliable sources in the public domain, and that means people should look more widely before voting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree with you that the analysis by CodeTalker of the on page references is questionable and I would disagree with some of the summary judgements be passed. However, if you think my !vote was based simply on "references in the article" then you didn't read what I wrote at all, but simply cherry picked something to disagree with. Rather I presented 8 various different links to policies, guidelines and essays from which I based my !vote, the majority of which has nothing to do with "references in the article" (but I think the references do precious little to help establish GNG), but certainly review them along with independent research I performed. If you'd like to suggest reliable sources to disagree with requirements for "multiple noteworthy shows" or secondary sources that "contain analysis, interpretation or synthesis" or how she meets any of the other criteria of things like DIRECTOR or NACTOR, etc. I would be happy to read a reliable, secondary source that talks about the attributes required in ENTERTAINER. I would be happy to hear what she as actually "contributed to a field of entertainment" that really isn't just WP:SNOWFLAKE. TiggerJay (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – obscure comedian, one of 10,000s on the comedy circuit in the UK but not significant in her own right. Vast majority of coverage found via search engines (most of which have been barrel scraped to build the article) have been scrutinised well above. Most are about her mother, who actually was a renowned comedian. One of the sources in the "partial" category above is largely about her being a comedian with autism, which whilst interesting, does not give her ground for an article of her own. Another is a tiny comment piece in The Guardian. The only one I'd give any weight to is the Sunday Post interview. I'll also add that in the past it looks like there's been resistance to giving her an article of its own, perhaps for the reasons already outlined here. Her name, until recently, would redirect to her mum's article, Janey Godley. Godley's illness and death does not change Storrie's notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I find the source assessment table quite flawed in its analysis, as there are numerous incorrect attributions of appropriate references. There is substantial coverage in several sources that highlight key milestones in the subject's career, including interviews, awards, and recognition for her shows such as Dinosaur. Sources like The List and Chortle provide detailed coverage, while BBC and Sunday Post showcase her visibility in the industry. Her recognition in the Scottish BAFTA, work on Dinosaur, and coverage in BBC programs significantly support her notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really, this is detailed coverage? 'Best Radio Comic: Ashley Storrie' and 'Nominees: Ashley Storrie (BBC Radio Scotland)' Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? You only found one source from The List? Also, what you mentioned from that reference can indeed be used to verify the achievement aspect. When combined with other source from The List, it provides coverage of her role and contributes to the significance of the subject in said programme. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said the assessment was flawed and said the sources provided detail coverage, I decided to take a look. The source assessment is quite correct to me.

  >When combined with other source from The List, it provides coverage of her role and contributes to the significance of the subject in said programme.

  It doesn't provide coverage of her role or any significance, it is a one line mention of an award. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Significant coverage" means that the topic is clearly and thoroughly addressed, though it doesn't require an in-depth or exhaustive explanation throughout the entire reference (solely). Rather, it should provide enough detail that the topic is well understood without needing additional research. If this level of coverage comes from an independent and reliable source, it meets WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, it's not necessary for the topic to be the main focus of the reference itself, as long as the information is substantial and relevant, it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SIGCOV is more than a trivial mention, as per the page. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Storrie is nominated for four BAFTAs ('the Scottish Emmys', if you like) -- and the award ceremony is in this coming week, on Sunday. Being nominated for her work is significant, winning one or more awards because of her work would be even more significant. The Scottish Sun is a national newspaper (because Scotland is a nation), so this has significant visibility. This article about her nomination provides further support for keeping this Wikipedia article.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/13835382/janey-godley-bafta-ashley-storrie-bbc/

FITTING TRIBUTE Janey Godley to be honoured at Scottish BAFTAs as daughter tipped for awards Insiders say it's 'only fitting' she is recognised at awards bash Chris Taylor, Reporter Published: 21:28, 9 Nov 2024 Updated: 11:15, 11 Nov 2024 Scottish Sun, showbiz section

I think this article and any followup or related articles would be worth citing. Roll on Sunday, when the results are announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs) }

Ah, not the best suggestion I'm afraid. The Sun, along with the Daily Mail and a few others, is prohibited from use on basically all articles because of its unmatched habit of talking utter shite. I would also say that it's more of a side-mention in relation to her mum and unlikely to sway the Nos even if allowed. However, I would suggest delaying the outcome of the decision until after the aforementioned ceremony, as winning one of the awards would likely result in increased, new media coverage which could demonstrate a GNG pass (although we are already there IMO). Crowsus (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the use of Sun publications was only deprecated in 2019 -- eighteen years after Wikipedia was founded, and a couple of years after the Mail was similarly shown the door. So hard to keep up with the new creeping Puritanism. "A few others"? That banlist is HUGE.

Nevertheless, delaying any decision until after the award ceremony and looking at resulting media coverage of it remains sensible, and I'd link here to some type of WAITANDSEE edict if only I could be bothered to find one. Roll on, Sunday. Lloyd Wood (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – just want to pick apart a few of the falsehoods in the comment above from @Lloyd Wood:. Firstly, she hasn't been nominated for 4 BAFTAs. She was nominated for 4 BAFTA Scotland Audience Awards. This is a minor award. It is NOT the annual mainstream British Academy Film Awards or even the British Academy Television Awards, but rather a minor subsidiary. Saying they're the "Scottish Emmy's" is false – the main BAFTA Television Awards are of that tier. Finally, Scotland is not a nation state. It's a country within a union, the United Kingdom being the sovereign nation state. I'm from there, I should know. And finally, as another user has pointed out, The Scottish Sun is not a reliable source. And to be totally frank, it's tabloid garbage. --Jkaharper (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly: I linked to the BAFTA page explaining the relationship between BAFTA and Scottish BAFTA. A BAFTA is a BAFTA, even though I and the article I cited did qualify it (correctly) as 'Scottish'. The brand and affiliation are correct, the Emmy analogy simply sets the scope, even if you don't like it. Maybe you'd like a different analogy? The main BAFTAs are not in themselves Scottish.

Secondly: I did not use the term 'nation state', or the term 'sovereign nation'; I know better than that. The Scottish people are a nation with a unique cultural identity, argot, dialect, and language - that is how 'national' applies. (A nation that most recently chose in a referendum to remain in the Union, but that was before the Brexit referendum, and sentiment may well since have shifted.)

Frankly, the 'falsehoods' here are a matter of interpretation, (And 'I'm from there, I should know' is the kind of weak argument to authority that I would expect @Jkaharper to point out as such, on his better days.) Lloyd Wood (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable and meets GNG, source analysis table unnecessarily downgrades some sources. Lirazelf (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as a BAFTA nominee. Additionally, collectively I think the sourcing adds up in-depth significant coverage. Pasess WP:BASIC/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The BAFTA Scotland Audience Awards is not a 'a well-known and significant award or honor'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "They're not real awards, they're Scottish" is really not the hill you would want to die on. 220.244.163.98 (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're real awards, just not very important. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Not mine. Others in this conversation are also of the opinion that the Scotland BAFTA (which is a part of the British Academy) is notable. Just like with the Emmy Awards where there are multiple notable divisions, the same is true of the BAFTAs.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "Scottish BAFTAs" though. There's no such thing. It's literally called the "BAFTA Scotland Audience Awards". It's obscure. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers of record have called the awards 'the Scottish BAFTAs' across multiple articles and publications -- even in Scotland.^[1] Lloyd Wood (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly works also mention the awards and call them by that name. You'll find references to the Scottish BAFTAs in various contexts in academic lit on Scottish TV, Film, etc. The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Scottish Literature, This Is Scotland, 100 Years of British Music, The Education of the Filmmaker in Europe, Australia, and Asia, Women Screenwriters: An International Guide, etc. Its clearly an often highlighted honor in independent secondary sources. It's not an obscure non-notable achievement. Its described as a significant film/television award on page 13 in Scotland: Global Cinema: Genres, Modes and Identities, Edinburgh University Press. Your assessment is just not accurate.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 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!} 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brock (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Also nominating Draft:Justin Brock (businessman)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Nearly all of the sources are clear paid placement marketing content. The only RS is the coverage by WCBI-TV, but it still reads suspiciously more like a press release than straight local news and isn't directly about the article subject. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Military, and Companies. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there are zero reliable sources. I’m afraid that, with sources like that, we can’t even verify basic information about him. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note Draft:Justin Brock. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch, this is a clear cut-and-paste move. I've added a history merge request. Closer should take note of this if history is merged before the AfD closes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  History merge (histmerge for short) was done by Pppery at 20:45 (UTC) a day later. Also I've added a draft rcat and rcat shell, although it'll be rendered useless and G8 deleted should this article be deleted too. Intrisit (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After seeing this article and its page history, it poses more like the Arshin Mehta (Actress)/Arshin Mehta article (which itself is already at AFD, but in different contexts). Good luck anyone trying to revive it after this AFD! Intrisit (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nine of the sources are blacklisted websites (which is why the article creator couldn't include a link), and the rest are similarly problematic. We can't have a biography of a living person supported only by advertorials and other unreliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 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!} 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YC Newfoundland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An almost identical article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Conference (Christian) about a year ago, I can't find anything on the subject except blog posts and primary promotional material. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Religion. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article Traumnovelle (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: No evidence of notability as quick google news search and it qualifies for WP:G4 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG given zero credible third party sources cited, nor found in a quick search. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Would support speedy if an admin determines the content is identical to the previously deleted article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like the conference hasn't happened since before COVID-19 pandemic, and possibly the pandemic killed the conference permanently as it did so many other things. I did find a couple of articles on Christian bands playing at the conference in the Newfoundland Herald (now defunct); but they were really more about the bands and not the conference itself. I wouldn't be surprised if there is pre-internet era coverage of the conference in CCM Magazine, Guide Post, Christianity Today, and the Newfoundland Herald that could be used to re-create this article and which would prove the topic passes WP:GNG. However, without physical evidence in hand, I don't see the value in keeping the article at this time. It can always be recreated when/if someone with a passion for defunct Christian music festival/conference wants to dig up sources in Christian magazines (both extant and defunct) or in the archives of the Newfoundland Herald, or other local newspapers. That editor can always start from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 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. As there are valid concerns about the verifiability of the material at the target, I have not proceeded with the redirect. One can be created should the issues be resolved and I'd be happy to restore the history. Star Mississippi 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projapoti (cricket) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Bangladesh. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More pertinently than NOTDICTIONARY, the word just hardly has any usage at all (at least in English script as presented here). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D:8932:A07F:5A4D (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Glossary of cricket terms#Projapoti where this topic is discussed. Left guide (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The term should probably be renamed to "butterfly" on that glossary page too. As noted above, it isn't generally used in English (even Indian English). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of cricket terms#Projapoti.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I oppose a redirect being created, as the mention there is also unsourced, and so should be removed as per WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 14 November 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!} 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NorthOnTrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources on the subject of the article, there are not even sources or article content on them. Appears to be a group lobbying for changes in Northern Powerhouse Rail and the whole article is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and changes that they want. IMO should be merged into the Northern Powerhouse Rail article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The one source where the "CrossNorth Programme" (now NorthOnTrack) was the primary subject was in an industry magazine which read overly promotional; so much so that it wasn't clear to me if the article was independent. Some trade magazines cover topics when they are paid to do so. Other than that, the coverage is all tangential is more about Northern Powerhouse Rail as the nominator pointed out. I couldn't find anything independent in searching.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 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. It's hard to believe that less than 3 weeks ago, a previous AFD led to the soft deletion of this article and now there is a consensus to Keep it. Just goes to show how it matters who shows up to participate in a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time Cmix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated 18 days ago, and there was no participation, so it was soft deleted. The soft deletion was challenged, the article was restored 11 hours ago, and it's still not well sourced. I'm guessing unilateral draftication, a redirect, or other alternatives to deletion may also be challenged, so I'm nominating this for an AfD discussion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Software, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV. There's a lot of one-off mentions and the best source I found was written by the creators of the program making it a primary source. I think there's enough to go on here, keep. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schützenpanzer Does the conference paper I found below count in your book as independent SIGCOV? Mach61 02:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'll strike my vote. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's coverage at a conference peper (doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2266-4_34) but I'm not sure if its a primary or secondary source. Mach61 02:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mach61 Kind of hard to tell with a paywall, isn't it? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @I dream of horses You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library, click this link and log in with your WP account if prompted. Mach61 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep upon skimming it has a lot of secondary information on RTcmix and is only a primary with regard to the WebRTcmix framework the authors developed.

  Mach61 02:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mach61 It's almost like I'm reading another language. Glad someone understands that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm seeing it referenced as an important computer music program in books on the history of electronic music in google books. The content is too technical for me though, and I don't understand it. It's clearly a topic we need a subject matter expert to work on, because the learning curve is high. The sourcing though is there, its just dense.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 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!} 23:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinichi Shuto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and not remotely close to a claim to notability, having played 2 cup games for J League teams. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he played 2 professional football matches. That is not a prominent career. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:FOOTYN or WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of National Premier Soccer League teams. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RI Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No sources to establish WP:V. If new sources are found, I change the vote. Svartner (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams as possible search term, but does not appear independently notable. I think we have done similar in the past. GiantSnowman 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams: As a valid ATD per GiantSnowman. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 14 November 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 Dave Stone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dave Stone. I could only find reviews on personal blogs, no coverage in independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Doesn't meet GNG Noah ^💬 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. I think it would be possible to build an article. Google books has some promising leads on snippet views of reviews in Fantasy/Sci-Fi journals from the mid 1990s, and it is likely there would be off-line coverage in media from then as well. However, without being able to access the full reviews, it probably best to redirect at present until a motivated editor with access to the right off-line materials can do the topic justice.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dave Stone: Fails WP:NBOOK redirect to target as a valid ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 14 November 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 fixed issues . (non-admin closure) •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splashtop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pretty much all promotional all primary and no secondary coverage •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be worth looking at Splashtop OS, an article that existed for a decade and was then deleted without explanation by converting it to a redirect. I reverted that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: SigCov in engadget, PCMag, TechRadar, and many books such as For Dummies. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 8 November 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!} 23:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo A. Haila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The draft for this already exists, the sources are low-quality, and it failed a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lebanon. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I understand the importance of quality sources and the need for thorough research. I am working on improving the article and will focus on providing more reliable and high-quality sources to support the claims. The music and performances of artists like Ricardo A. Haila represent a unique blend of Middle Eastern and contemporary percussion styles, contributing to the diversity and richness of the musical landscape. Ritaknazarian (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete larger part of the subject is completely unsourced and out of 4 references listed, only 1 look like a potential with others being interviews and gist blogs. Tesleemah (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this young musician is not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited so far are interviews, plus his name mentioned in passing in a Paris gig announcement. Searching for his name in English and Arabic only turned up more of the same, including the "proud to be participating" interview already cited, which has been posted to many sites. Wikishovel (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had to remove a bunch of promotional stuff while browsing earlier, wasn't convinced that it met notability at all, but gave it the benefit of the doubt. But now that this has been brought to AfD, can confidently cast my delete vote. Procyon117 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did not find any significant coverage about the subject. SATavr (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)SATavr[reply]

• Comment. Performing at the 2022 FIFA World Cup would seem to indicate some level of notability as a musician. Has anyone searched for sources in Lebanese Arabic? If there are independent quality sources I would assume they would be in that language.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is too soon for WP:NMUSICIAN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:42, 14 November 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!} 23:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H4yyee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks reliable sourcing, both within the article itself and in the WP:BEFORE search. I tried draftication, but it was moved back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Snow. Could even call it an A7 speedy. Simply not notable. SpamLinkBombed self promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree with an A7 speedy deletion. Clearly an attempt at self-promotion, with links to his spotify page (which isn't even his website), and full of links to spotify songs. No notability whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I found one interview in local newspaper Smålands-Tidningen [1] but although independent it is not secondary, it is nowhere near sufficient to show notability, and it says that he is an up-and-coming musician so at best this is too soon for an article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even with the Smålands-Tidningen source it's not enough for any notability standard. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON (if ever).4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish WP:NMUSICIAN here. Nothing useful showed up from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 14 November 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!} 23:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Parker Appel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significant roles in notable films found. Also article is very short, and still has apparently insignificant facts. Ur frnd (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete completely unreferenced BLP. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do NOT Speedy delete An official website and IMDB aren't appropriate references, but they are enough to say that it's NOT completely unreferenced. Having said that, I don't see any indication of notability, and what I do see in celebrity news sites is entirely in connection with her husband. Merging content to Eric Appel might be a plausible ATD, but I have no strong feelings on this. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and BLP concerns leave me to not see any purpose in an AtD, redirects can be recreated after and sourced content can always be added irrespective of this AfD's outcome. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cannot find any reliable sources with coverage to support NOTABILITY. I can’t tell from the article what the subject is notable for in order to do a deeper dive. Nnev66 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Again, there is not a single source in the entire article. So I'll go with Nominator here. Baqi:) (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two: IMDB, and an archive of an official site. Neither are good sources, but both are sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. No significant coverage in independent sources. The few that mention her or all about her husband. No significant parts in film, television, or theatre.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Indeed fails WP:NACTOR. A cursory search showed nothing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and improve its sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemount High School (Montreal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page. Nothing much found which could count towards the notability criteria and schools do not have inherent notability. JMWt (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. JMWt (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE as per nomination

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some independent coverage online. Here, here, here, and here. Bremps... 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple sources on newspapers.com, such as here which I will add today. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I've added links to many related newspaper articles at Talk:Rosemount High School Talk:Rosemount High School (Montreal). According to WP:CONTN, Article content does not determine notability ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Rosemount High School (Montreal) therefore meets WP:GNG.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Talk:Rosemount High School (Montreal)? McYeee (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, good catch. I amended my comment above. Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Grand'mere Eugene's Sources (linked above) demonstrate notability. McYeee (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am very unconvinced by the sources found so far. A school should meet WP:NORG, and although SCHOOLOUTCOMES says it is sufficient to meet GNG, the point of GNG is to find coverage in multiple reliable sources from which an encyclopaedic article can be written. This is not met by wrestling teachers, stories about cellphones in classrooms, or a local paper's primary source news report of the near completion of the school building (this last is good to confirm the date the school was built, but what else?). The launch of an Arts-Études program perhaps gives a little more to say, although it needs secondary sourcing. Ideally we would have coverage in books, especially histories, to establish notability. I found one here [4] which, according to the index, covers this school on page 326. However I was unable to persuade google to show me that page in preview and I cannot access the work through any library service and it is only available from Amazon as a paperback or hardback. I note, however, the publisher is McGill-Queen's University Press, and the topic is such that it is likely this is a significant mention. I next turned to other publications. A teacher wrote this [5] and there are quite a few other cases of the school getting mentioned becuase of teachers (including the teacher who wrestles, of course). But again, these don't allow us to write about the schools. This study [6] however, is interesting. It looks at subject grade progression in Protestant Montreal high schools and Rosemount is the trial case and thus referred throughout. A choral programme at the school his discussed in this book [7]. Not at great length, but it is something. I think there is enough to keep this article, although I note that the inability to actually read what looks like the best source leaves this a little in the air, and presents a challenge for the page writers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 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. asilvering (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trasna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. Coverage available (both in article and in WP:BEFORE search does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT -- instead, it's all a mix of primary sources, trivial mentions, press releases, niche WP:TRADES publications and coverage that would be excluded as WP:ORGTRIV. No reasonable redirect option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Almost all of the sources (in the article and that I can find) are press releases, primary sources, passing mentions and otherwise the same type of coverage we might expect for any similar small company. The number of issues with the limited references that are in place (including FV and WP:REFBOMB concerns) is also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep looks like not clearly meeting NCORP but additional sources may exist per NEXIST as the organization is notable in its nature. --25lucky (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this !vote even mean? If you think it doesn't meet WP:NCORP, then that should be a delete, right? And if you are citing WP:NEXIST, please supply the evidence of said sources. We deal with real sources, not hypothetical sources. Finally, WP:NORG/WP:NCORP does not have a criterion for an organization that is "notable in its nature." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No relevant WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 23:22, 13 November 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. Star Mississippi 23:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Araya (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bloody Disgusting ref is a news announcement, not significant coverage. Reviews in azralynn.com and the two additional reviews listed at Mobygames: [8] (Brash Games, GameAwards.ru) are self published sources, no indication that they are reliable. Brash Games is also listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Thailand. Mika1h (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of in-depth coverage in Thai[9][10][11], including a scoop on Thai PBS[12]. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two of the articles listed are interviews but one is in-depth in its non-quote content as well, and the first is very thorough. This meets WP:THREE and should be kept given presence of Thai sources. Most of article currently is a long plot summary but at the very least a well-sourced short article could be written on this. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the WP:SIGCOV provided by Paul_012 above.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nog's Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. One non-independent source in the article, and a WP:BEFORE returned little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nog's Vision doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I cannot find any reviews of the book, just listings and brief mentions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a 1+ page review at Military Chaplains' Review Volume 104, p. 58-59. Any reason this is not a reliable source? The Google Books search has a number of hits from magazines which I think do reviews, like The Publishers Weekly Volume 209, but as there is no access, I cannot see if they actually do review this book. Does anyone have any kind of access? And there's a bit in Not the Same Old, Done-It-Before Youth Meetings, not sure how we see this as a reliable source, and I cannot see p. 88-89. P. 86-87 has plot summary and the one bit of reception of being "a wonderful storybook". Daranios (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios The review in the Military Chaplains' Review is certainly getting there; I assume there's some sort of editorial oversight. Of course, people can't assess sources they can't access. I'm always glad to be proven wrong when sources I can't access turn up proving something is notable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios, good search, thank you! The Military Chaplains' Review is a good review. The Publishers Weekly result is merely a list of books that Paulist Press was offering a discount on. Not the Same Old is a guide for conducting youth meetings; it recaps Nog's Vision to discuss the question of the difference between a dream and a vision. I'm not confident that this meets the criteria but I'm open to hearing arguments that it does. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one good review above, plus [13]. This says it was reviewed in a publication called Luna Monthly in 1974 as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Luna Monthly review, it's not super long, but it is certainly evaluative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Luna Monthly review, PARAKANYAA. That's not enough yet for me to change to keep, as it is a non-notable fanzine. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a source has no impact on its reliability, or plenty of reliable academic journals are unusable. If you meant just in the context of zines, fair, but it actually does appear to be a notable publication as searching for it in some science fiction history sources showed some sigcov. No one has written an article yet. Zines are not always unreliable, they just must achieve some kind of reliable recognition, for example the albums project has tons of zines listed as reliable sources. It also involved several notable people.

With the Sci fi encyclopedia saying about this publication that it was "notable for its professionalism and its exceptionally thorough review coverage, for which it is a useful research tool. Reviews – some by Greg Bear – were often good", that counts for me. The fact that it was indexed in the sci fi book review index is also a sign that it had some level of acceptance in the wider scene. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Phew, the Luna Monthly surely provides a balance to positive other reviews. I believe the sources collected together fullfill WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the evidence that Luna Monthly is a reliable source is convincing so that with the Military Chaplains review there is a pass of WP:NBOOK in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the evidence presented at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 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. Star Mississippi 23:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Gain Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A potential WP:TOOSOON article that would be a good draftification, but for the fact that it's been moved back from draftspace. Poorly sourced, failed WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify pending a successful WP:AFC review. Article is mostly a how-to article at the moment, and all but one source is from the software vendor Adobe. But searching for sources on this, it seems that a more general article about gain maps in image editing software could be a useful topic, perhaps with a section on Adobe's support for this. Gain map redirects at the moment to Radiation pattern in antenna engineering, but doesn't currently mention gain maps. Wikishovel (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per reasoning above.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 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. asilvering (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Sultan Mansor Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Previous nomination WP:Articles for deletion/Sultan Mansor Shah Secondary School was outdated for the later WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES on the February 2017 RFC. WP:R made in [14] by Alexander Iskandar and [15] by Hongqilim which were reverted should be a proper move. My first AfD nomination, hehe. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 google news hits. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:41, 14 November 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. asilvering (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Puget Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hyper-local trade organization of small sphere of influence. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't find sources suggesting WP:NORG is met, in particular WP:AUD. A lot of local regions have local trade organizations. This doesn't particularly stand out as notable and is not significant enough of a global enyclopedia. After analyzing contribution history and seeing phrasing like "Members can also request to be emailed audition announcements automatically as they become available.", public relations editing intended to inflate importance and notability is involved. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No plausible redirect target. I found tons of listings and brief mentions, but the only independent significant coverage was a single Seattle Times article.[16] Not sufficient to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, this highly promotional fluff filled article was predominantly authored by their board president Frank Lawler per their user page self-disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find any evidence that this meets WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 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 Big Brother Titans. asilvering (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khosi Twala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reality television participant of Big Brother Titans who does not appear to have received coverage outside of the show. Appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:ENT at this point of time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and South Africa. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Big Brother Titans: Per nom. The description states that she's a TV personality, entrepreneur, journalist, model and influencer. However, there's no reference to back that statement. Big Brother is not even a talent show. This was just 15 minutes of fame. dxneo (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: or Redirect to Big Brother Titans per WP:ENTERTAINER. ®asteem Talk 06:42, 9 November 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 Making Dens. Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas Agnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability bar for songs requires evidence of their cultural significance (charting, awards, sufficient coverage and analysis about the song in reliable sources to get it over WP:GNG, etc.) -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and the article is completely unreferenced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Making Dens: also found no evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Making Dens: Fails WP:NSINGLE, redirect to best ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:40, 14 November 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. The delete arguments cite policy much more clearly than do the keep arguments. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: standard list of programmes by network,: can be trimmed, but at least please see Category:MeTV_original_programming. WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: previous recent AfDs for similar lists have resulted in deletion or redirection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by HTV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I participated in at least one of the ones you linked (and a relist would not have hurt in that particular case) and I would obviously have !voted Keep at the other ones if I had been aware of the discussions.

  But those 6 AfDs -FXIW: One was in 2009- do not invalidate the arguments above and 1) the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept/unchallenged pages is a hint that 2) should anyone take further actions to delete similar pages a more general discussion would perhaps be useful. At the very very very least Redirects would indeed seem to be an obvious ATD in each and every case except when he network has no page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, didn't mean to include that 2009 one, wanted to list to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL). I'll leave it in the list, but it of course is no evidence of any recent AfD trend on the matter. But on the other hand I see no evidence for "the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept" articles (unchallenged ones are just that, nothing more or less). For channels with little or no original programming (something like the above AfDs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)), the result is nearly always delete / redirect. The keeps are usually for major channels with lots of original programming, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, and I wouldn't argue for deletion of such ones. Fram (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Illinois. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Largely acquired programming with next to no original content. Also inadequately sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I might be missing something here, but where does it say originals has notability, but reruns don't? The owner of this channel Weigel Broadcasting has better viewership than Hallmark, A&E networks or AMC that do have original programming. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/#viewing-by-distributor

One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....

  Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This channel has already proven to be very popular for its iconic selection of toons. I think it totally deserves to have an extension with a list of programs page. Voicebox64 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Viewers should know what airs on the channel. 12.28.52.122 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt the average Joe is going to look at what programs are broadcasted on the channel on Wikipedia. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The channel's programming is better summarized in a paragraph in the main article about programming than yet another adverty WP:NOTTVGUIDE violation. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hopefully, you will start or support a deletion of List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV as well. This is the same type of list with this kind of violation. :)

  Msw1002 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreliable sources and no reason why it should be a separate article. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The channel, like most diginets, has little to no original programming. A reasonable summary of channel programming and more detail of any original programming can be provided in the parent article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Last comment (I promise!), because this list is headed for deletion. Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This channel largely exists to show reruns of older television shows. Wikipedia should not serve as a guide for what one can watch on random television channels. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to show any original content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --woodensuperman 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, they do, see above; but even if that was not the case, a list of programs may be considered notable even if not (completely) original ( =coverage on the topic as a set includes https://www.animationmagazine.net/2024/05/metv-toons-unveils-debut-programming-schedule/ https://www.fastcompany.com/91152142/metv-toons-max-cartoons-looney-tunes https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/metv-toons-network-launch-weigel-broadcasting-warner-bros-discovery-1235988916/ https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2024/06/metv-officially-launches-new-cartoon-channel-on-your-dial.html; and other guidelines may apply anyway) Mushy Yank (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it should be trimmed to original content only. --woodensuperman 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm repeating my comment to you, since you are the only one who responds to others.🙂Here is my note from above:

  Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe they should be. WP:OTHERSTUFF. --woodensuperman 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Msw1002, if other articles should be considered for deletion, then feel free to put a nomination argument together for them. WP:FIXIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz, Thank you for the heads up and suggestion.🙂

  I was planning on doing this, but was waiting on the outcome of this discussion to back any argument for a nomination of deletion for any other similar article. Msw1002 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see many P&G-based views here. The WP:TV essay says nothing about notability hinging on the originality of the programming, and adherence to GNG wasn't addressed here even once. We also tend to discard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type votes, exemplified here with the retributive, "Keep or delete other articles". As always, a critical source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reliable sources such as ABC News and Variety Magazine covered MeTV's programming when they launched, so it barely passes WP:NLIST.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just deserve a paragraph or two in the main article giving examples, and mentioning original programming there, rather than listing everything the channel broadcasts on this dedicated list article? --woodensuperman 22:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article provides more details about the kind of programming the channel carries instead of just "cartoons". Such as it doesn't have more adult themed cartoons. However, if this article is kept, it needs to be tagged for cleanup. Right now it looks a bit messy. Msw1002 (talk)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I did a search on the ABC News site and found no hits for MeTV Toons. I searched Variety and found this story, which doesn't actually list programmes - it lists characters in those programmes. Weirdly it does mention the programmes broadcast on Cartoon Network's Boomerang channel, but only briefly. It's possible this is just an example of Google becoming weird nowadays, but at the very least I don't see the coverage discussed above - I'd be looking for at least two pieces of WP:SIGCOV of this channel's programming to pass WP:LISTN and I don't see any at all. FOARP (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: You are correct about ABC News. Not surprised, MeTV Toons is basically competition to Disney (ABC), so they will probably never mention them. I did find sources such as Variety, Forbes, Deadline, TVLine when I searched though. Msw1002 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Without independent sources discussing the programming as a group or set I'm not seeing how this list can exist. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Please see my note above concerning independent sources. Thanks. Msw1002 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The problem is that those source don't discuss this topic in a meaningful way as a "group or a set" (meaning in an in-depth fashion) as required by NLIST, and they are not clearly independent as they are basic puffery press releases.4meter4 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 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 14:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Vance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Most articles other than this one are just a passing mention. Other results are just tennis databases etc. Barely meets WP:NTENNIS (was an alternate at 2022 Delray Beach Open and 2022 Sofia Open) but fails WP:SIGCOV. RachelTensions (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. RachelTensions (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Shrug02 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, can’t even find a single source with substantial information. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:10, 14 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kefas Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can’t find many in depth sources online, I believe he fails WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kefas Brand are still present. Refs all read like spam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I deleted the first version of this article, but allowed the second to be created because it was reasonably different. However, I agree with the nominator and Spiderone about the poor sourcing, so I too think it should be deleted. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  Compare comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bash Luks, which was created by the same, now CU-blocked, likely UPE sock. Bishonen | tålk 13:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Like others from the Lot Fire Records sock farm this is promotion sourced to PR. There is a lack of Independent coverage. No significant roles in notable productions so no pass of NACTOR. No notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Duffbeerforme I don’t agree the sources are Pr being they are not blogs but news papers in mainstream Uganda so I can’t agree they are not of independent coverage. I’d request you kindly look further into the news references and we are speaking of Uganda in this case.

  thank you Idrisskunle (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)— Idrisskunle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per User:Duffbeerforme. Lacks independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Duffbeerforme@Bishonen@Spiderone I have been researching about the News refrences on the Articles referenced in the Article and I’ve come to realize they are not blogs but are articles written in mainstream Ugandan media. The articles used are not blogs but newspapers and independent online media with editorial oversight. There's no reason to believe that the sources are A not independent (they have by-lined authors who are journalists) so I don’t think it is a paid promotion or Lacks independent news coverage. You can kindly search about them online to clarify news papers like “Red paper, Capital Fm, Kampala Dispatch, Kampala Sun, Kampala Dispatch, Scoop Kampala, News Ghana, among others which have referenced the Topic. probably you could look more into and come to a discion. Also looking at other articles from Uganda, I have also come to realize it’s almost the same news papers referencing almost all the notable people over there. So I don’t think they are blogs but Independent news papers. Probably this Topic has had issues on Wikipedia but as explained by @Bishonen the previous articles written were highly dubious and promotional focused on his romantic relationship. But This article was fairly good as stated by Bishonen. So I’d suggest we look further into the Topic not basing judgment on feelings. I contributed to the Topic on Simple wiki being in learning to edit articles I chose to start from simple where I have drafted a few articles then I can later move to en wiki so I have not stated this because I am related to the topic but also I don’t understand much how all the rules work. So I’d suggest we look further into this topic before.

  thanks Idrisskunle (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)— Idrisskunle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]