Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 10	May 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Negative (Finnish band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Anatomy

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

No indication he's notable beyond his band. KaisaL (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Negative (Finnish band), as he has done nothing notable outside of the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to WBNA. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[1]] and [[2]]. If the consensus is not to keep, I'd recommend a merge to WBNA. User:Let'srun 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database record of technical station data. Fails WP:SIRS	1. "Facility Technical Data for WBNM-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
TV screen shots, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ Westerburg, Girard. "FM and TV DX (Analog TV images)". DXFM.com. Lexington, KY. Archived from the original on December 27, 2007. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
Database record	3. ^ "Digital TV Market Listing for WBNM-LD". RabbitEars.info. Retrieved April 20, 2024.

The above two sources are typical of the name mentions found in BEFORE and they do not discuss the subject with SIGCOV directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 12 May 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. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stanaland

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. I have added more secondary sourcing to back up previous claims, as well as more general information. I believe it covers significant coverage with sources such as Radio World and various newspapers outside the local area. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify as author. I believe there is enough to have it be notable, but I think that I have rushed the publishing of the article. There are newspaper archives I would like to look through, and I believe there should be enough there for it to go through the regular draft review process. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can agree to that if there are additional sources to be found. Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced too heavily to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability — and what there is for proper reliable source coverage isn't enough to establish the permanent notability of a person whose notability claims are of purely local rather than nationalized significance. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks them out as special cases of much greater significance than most other city councillors, but the sourcing here isn't showing that. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles cited are largely from organizations connected to Stanaland or passing mentions. Being a city councilor does not inherently establish notability, and neither does serving as treasurer of a festival "among the ten largest Shakespeare festivals in the world." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk

I have a question about the sources connected to him, as I have removed some of the more promotional sources. Many of these sources talk about what he spoke about, and basic information. Would it be better to have a source that is specifically about him? The cited unlinked newspaper is, but it’s still more local. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need to show "significant coverage," not merely be articles that include his name and facts about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm leaning delete, but the head of Economics at Auburn University is a credible claim towards WP:PROF notability if the head was a full professor with a research career. I'm not finding that, hence the leaning towards delete, but if the author of the article can find sources citing the significance of Dr. Stanaland's research, that could move me towards a keep vote on academic grounds (it's not a WP:NPOL pass by a long shot, I'm afraid) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mscuthbert There are cases of him going on the University’s radio show to discuss economics related things- I haven’t had time to go through them all but he generally discusses the economy, and I know there is stuff on the price of gold. Still not sure how to include that Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His going on the radio wouldn't be evidence of notability; WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources. It would need to be independent secondary sources documenting his effects as an academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 source 18 covers a small bit about his research. Would it be like that in terms of coverage, because there are other mentions in newspapers about similar things. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not, since it's a student paper; per WP:RSSM, student media can be considered as reliable to confirm information but not sufficiently independent to validate notability for their home institutions and affiliated parties. Here's an example, here's another of the kind of coverage that documents the impact of an academic's research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of above and the nominator and author's endorsement of the move, I'm happy to support Draftify -- on the (WP:AGF) basis that the author may be able to find sources that support notability on one grounds or another, but it's not in the article yet. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:39, 17 May 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 arguments to keep are remarkably weak. Only one of them provides any evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and the source therein has been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis

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

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Paranormal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, in which case the article would, of course, need to be completely rewritten. Brunton (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which still might be best to nuke it for orbit and start from scratch? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the bubble built by a couple of authors. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Unsure~~ Weak Keep was thinking delete unless reliable sources can be found for this purported hermetic order. But maybe sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources exist that are not part of Llewelyn press after review. There are... not many... but they are sufficient not to warrant deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Such as? Here's the relevant Google Scholar search result:[3]. If you can present one or two independent RS among these for evaluation, that would be sufficient as a first step. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first one is a non-Llewellyn book. [4] Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about "non-Llewellyn". Have a look at the first page of the preview. Do you consider Kraft's book an independent and reliable source? –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an in-universe description of a magical tradition. Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Just if it's notable. I am not suggesting Wikipedia should treat these descriptions as being of actual effects of magical ritual. I am just suggesting this group of magic type people appears to meet the minimum standard for WP:GNG. Barely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can't be used to establish notability. That needs to be done by third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Sure, but Wikipedia cares if it's WP:DUE. That's an essential part of WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article suffers from poor management and sourcing, but it is not a non-notable organization in its "field," arguably on par with the Ciceros' Golden Dawn order, the now-defunct Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, the Crowleyan A∴A∴/OTO and the (also under-written) Fraternitas Rosae Crucis. It would give an incomplete picture for this org to not have its own page. I'd mentioned this before, but maybe I could give this article a real try at sourcing. As was suggested above, starting from scratch (but without deletion) might be the best option.

AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is because wp:n applies, as does wp:fringe and wp:undue. Throwing out the rubbish is just what AFD is for. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it turns out there are sources, it would be better to restart from scratch given the state of the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some Google Scholar entries apparently exist. I have not reviewed yet. [5] Unsigned comment by Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with comment. As I write this article claims Ordo Aurum Solis was founded by George Stanton and Charles Kingold, names confirmed here in Encyclopedia.com. However, that encyclopedia doesn't say it was the Christian bishop George Stanton. It likely would have been a blasphemous scandal for him to do such a thing and the alleged founding is not and was never mentioned in bishop Stanton's Wikipedia biography. Stanton and Kingold are called "occultists" in another encyclopedia.com article [6]. KEEP because Ordo Aurum Solis qualifies for an entry in encyclopedia.com. 5Q5|^✉ 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I de-Wikified George Stanton as not being the Christian bishop but an occultist. An online search for "George Stanton" occultist confirms this. 5Q5|^✉ 09:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is improperly sourced and/or WP:OR, promotional ("The current Grand Master Jean-Louis de Biasi continues to maintain the high moral standards of this tradition") and unsalvageable. If sufficient appropriate sources can ever be found to justify a new article, none of the existing content will be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 26 May 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 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per route 1 and 6. Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources. Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 24 May 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 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per route 1 and 6. Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources. Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 24 May 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 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Breeze" routes are not mentioned at Brighton & Hove (bus company)#Operations and routes but should be, and would be a reasonable merge target for the key information in this article. WP:BUSOUTCOMES would suggest that such an outcome should be expected -- contrast content with Brighton & Hove Regency Route which is more clearly keep as a separate article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: ... and I've gone ahead at Brighton & Hove (bus company)#The_Breeze_routes. What's in the proposed target is reasonable enough to have there. What's left unique at this page (ie: the stops) doesn't need to be in an article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of four related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all from the bus company or the local council. --wooden superman 20:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google found coverage on route 12 which is part of this article:

Article should be improved, not deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added to the article, mainly using sources kindly provided by Garuda3, showing praise it has recieved for its scenery. harrz ^talk 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources presented here show that the Coaster routes (or at least route 12) does meet WP:GNG beyond routine coverage. Having a title "the best bus route in the world" evaluated by a national mainstream paper like The Times and noted as one of England's "most scenic" by another national mainstream paper like The Guardian [7] isn't something you see on your everyday bus route (unlike route 6 which is indeed non-notable). S5A-0043^Talk 02:38, 13 May 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. With no further participation, I see no point in further relistings. There is a difference of opinion among experienced editors about the value of the sourcing so I'll have to close this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song)

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

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [8] and this from the UN [9]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same song? [10], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [11], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 May 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!} 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist)

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

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.

He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.

He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.

In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.

I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see WP:BURDEN. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.

PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign that she passes WP:NACADEMIC, her top research doesn't even cross 50 citations. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For certain her h-factors is low, and she has no major international awards to indicate peer recognition. What I also find disturbing is the mention of using STEM cell transplant for immuno diseases and some cancers as one of her patents. In fact I am pretty certain that these are either close to or already being trialed in the UK by others, perhaps elsewhere as well. There is no indication that she is involved in any of that, otherwise there would be mentions in the UK Grauniad or the New York Times in the sources. If you have the will local patents are easy, but I have seen some local ones which would never be enforceable internationally. Hence I end up being very unconvinced by both the article and it's defence. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Glincosky

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

American actor. I’m the creator of this page but after editing I realized subject does not have as many sources as I thought they may have had. I’ll leave it up to you guys whether you think it deserves an article or not.HeroicWarriors (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:02, 11 May 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. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you find sources that can be used to establish notability, please identify them in this discussion. General comments that sources exist aren't taken seriously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the awards, I'm willing to believe there are reliable sources. They might not be in English. This discussion can always be revisited again later, depending on what further searches reveal. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Sources exist even if the nominator could not read them and is not able to evaluate them. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us 2 examples of the best-ish WP:N sources for this subject you've seen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't typically a third but there's some ongoing conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some RIS covering the fictional character, not the historical person. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier

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

Ferry pier in Hong Kong that doesn’t seem notable. I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I found passing mentions in a search for the English name here and here. The pier's Chinese name is (traditional Chinese: 威利麻街碼頭; simplified Chinese: 威利麻街码头). There are a few sentences of coverage in this book.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @Cunard. Found a few other mentions:

https://archive.org/details/NPCM19600708/page/4/mode/2up - China Mail announcing (briefly) ferry services to Lamma
https://archive.org/details/isbn_9782012422087/page/234/mode/2up French-language tour guide saying briefly where to catch a ferry to Lamma
https://archive.org/details/NPCM19500825/page/n3/mode/2up China Mail announcing cross-harbor vehicle ferry from Western to Shamshuipo - read liberally, this article approaches significant coverage

Oblivy (talk) 06:21, 14 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati

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

BLP of a religious leader lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in other languages, in which case it would be good if someone could add them. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avimukteshwaranand is the current head (shankaracharya) of Jyotir Math monastery (matha). His views/ events are covered in newspapers/ TV ABP News [12], Navbharat Times [13], Dainik Bhaskar [14], Economic Times [15], Amar Ujala [16], The Statesman [17], Dainik Jagran [18]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Poor sources. Current page fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV but the religious person who is the topic of the page has managed to be worthy of notice by making unusual controversies to deserve attention. Sources can be found on the issues and controversies and I am going to lean to Draftify this page for improvement. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I’d support that. There’s a job to do in sorting out the sources to base the article on what’s genuinely independent and reliable. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: Particularly per above. The article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but I am sure especially at being a disciple of Hinduism. There should be more work here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:31, 29 May 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 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions

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

I'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is biased and running some personal vendetta. Hence, the page should be kept. I'm more than welcome to make any changes as deemed necessary. Aanuarif (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,

The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot see how the sources in the article meet WP:NCORP. I agree with the nominator that this has strong whiffs of UPE about it. Can anyone wishing to advocate for keeping the article please share the best three links that they believe have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Daniel (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with nom. Article style is highly promotional to make it look notable when it's actually not. Haruka Amaranth 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qudsia Ali

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

The subject doesn't meet the NACTOR. Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point.

The Express Tribune. [19]

Daily Times. [20]

Daily Times. [21]

BBC News. [22]

DAWN [23]

The Express Tribune [24]

Daily Jang [25]

Dawn Images [26]

The Nation [27]

Daily Pakistan [28]

Dawn Images [29] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Let's decide first whether we'll assess this BLP based on NACTOR or GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, That reply didn't quite answer my question. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marleeashton, But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation, DAWN, Daily Times, Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources.

The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [30]
Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [31]
BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [32]
DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [33]

And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi. However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did, the Short film XXL, themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [34] or positively like these [35] [36] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm with Mushy Yank on this (though I would by way of advice encourage Libraa2019 to be more concise in future discussions). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but Libraa2019 has not provided any references showing that the actor had major roles in a TV drama. Additionally, most of the TV dramas subject acted in are not notable themselves, not because they lack WP pages, but because they don't have the sig/in-depth coverage required by GNG. Libraa2019 has simply thrown out several references, potentially to confuse the closing admin and lead to a no-consensus outcome. I appreciate your opinion, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of good refs here. Desertarun (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Desertarun, WP:ATA —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:32, 18 May 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 Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kadammanja

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing much available to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi_Broadcasting_Corporation#Anne_Kadammanja where she is being mentioned in trivia. I am the creator of the article, and it would be best to simply redirect it as there are not much sources to support it as standalone article.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Maldives. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja: per Tumbuka Arch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:23, 19 May 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. While there was some !voting for merging or keeping, the consensus of editors, when weighing against policies and guidelines, was for deletion. Some suggested salting these titles. I'm not sure salting is appropriate in this circumstance (1 merge, 1 deletion AfD each under a different name) and so am not doing this, but without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator choosing to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

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

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just did this one and it's back again. !Merge as suggested less than 6mths ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned my position/opinion is on Talk:EcoCute (Japan), please refer.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that previous AfD was closed as merge despite the fact that it appears one editors were advocating for keep, one (nominator) for merge, and one for delete: it seems more like no consensus to me. Appears to have some international coverage from fiz-karlsruhe.de that's already cited in the article. ja:エコキュート has lots of coverage including from Yomiuri, Mainichi, Kyodo, NHK, and more including an award from ja:発明協会. I also found this magazine featuring it. I would also rename to get rid of the parenthetical per WP:PARENDIS. DCsansei (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Re-creating a page that was closed as merge, now with a spurious disambiguation, is not constructive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the procedural point but that this AfD should still be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think a prior AfD with 3 !votes advocating for 3 different positions should prejudice this discussion. DCsansei (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO₂ reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, again~~: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.

Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.

1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024

2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024

3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.

4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO₂ and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO₂/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT both this and EcoCute for six months. It is clear that the title-gaming author has no intention of abiding by the result of a merge in this AfD any more than they did in the previous AfD. Any additional attempts to circumvent consensus by title-gaming should be handled with a topic ban. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep + Comment~~: As of article version 05:15, 19 May 2024, JIS JIS C 9220：2018 in section “EcoCute machine basics”, it should be noted that no equivalent total system, EcoCute is 1: heat pump air sourced + 2: hot water storage tank + 3: supply with CO2 Refrigerant. Air source heat pump is describe step 1: only and functional usage is for air conditioner, bathing, underfloor heating and etc., and any conceivable use connecting to room air conditioning unit or to water unit or any unit for purpose. JIS C 9220 standards clearly defined/request associated hot water tank mandatory as single system. I am not sure standard for air source heat pump is, but sure that it may not defined/request associated hot water tank. My “keep” position is rationally with/based reasons, facts and differences.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already !voted above. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quick advice. Noticed the rule.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many air source heat pump systems in Europe include hot water tanks. Certainly Ecocute should be mentioned in the Air source heat pump history section as it was so ahead of its time. It was a great pioneer but nowadays others have caught up. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention would not be amiss (like, one sentence), but making more than 1/3 of the article about Ecocute is far too much. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT/redirect and consider topic-banning Namazu-tron from this topic due to apparent undisclosed COI. DCsansei has found some references that do include significant coverage of the subject in major Japanese publications such as NHK [37] and Yomiuri Shimbun ([38]). However, this coverage is exclusively negative, and the state of the article as written by Namazu-tron does not even begin to incorporate this information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, get the clear sense we're dealing with a COI/UPE here. The tendentious, unrelenting recreation/reversion pattern and the promotional tone suggest, at the very least, a strong POV. Rosguill, please ping me if you take this to AN/I or such. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived NHK and Yomiuri Shimbun site are dated almost 10 years ago. Capable Japanese mfg. seems solve the problems, and no social topics on TV nor Newspaper nowadays, and I’m no intention to hide these topics for edit. My edit thinking/idea for “basic”section seems almost dried up now. I’m seeing Japanese EcoCute (エコキュート) has section health hazards　(健康被害） and etc.(その他), and my plan has to be to add these topic as next step in edit, and I will edit for problem/negative/positive topics by taking time or days.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There appears to be a consensus not to keep, but there's no consensus yet for delete, merge, or redirect. A topic ban is not a valid AfD outcome; that discussion should be had at AN or ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think that the past coverage I dug up constitutes sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass the GNG but I've edited my vote into a comment. I think merge is the best outcome here given the state of the article. DCsansei (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Do not merge: We do not publish product brochures or sell sheets, but that's what IMHO this pagespace best resembles. For the purposes of this discussion, nothing in this article should be used in a Wikipedia article on air pumps without a critical screening. The behavior of User:Namazu-tron in this process is a separate (but not unrelated) issue. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a report at the COI noticeboard where User:Namazu-tron might explain their fierce loyalty to these two pages. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to created a report, Thank you. --Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Initial version EcoCute in 2008 has full of section “history”, and Air source heat pump did not have section “history” before marge EcoCute into Air source heat pump version 27 January 2024 which keeps afterward section history with almost full content from merged EcoCute nowaday, this is my pleasure in editing. JIS in 2011 revised in 2018 Standards issued with titled C 9220：2018“Residential heat pump water heaters (家庭用ヒートポンプ給湯機)”, which illustrated requisite be to heat pump and water heaters storage tank as the single of heat pump unit + water heater unit with storage tank as a whole. This is new and innovating type of product, named ECoCute though, placed in market in 2001, and record cumulative 9 million units by 2023.“Residential heat pump water heaters” is not a part of Air source heat pump. It is the product appeared consequence of technical/engineering innovation day by day. ISO has not issued standards equivalent to JIS C 9220：2018 yet, hopefully they issue in future in coming years. ISO: Heat pump water heater for hot water supply Wikipedia should accept new product as the article as the internet encyclopedia, when term EcoCute deleted or merged then disappear, it brings reader is hard to find out that term, such consequence is not the purpose of existence of Wikipedia. Articles quality is important, also user friendly/usability is important as donation based entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system. We don’t want to see/hear that AI and/or GPT indicate/speak term/word neither “EcoCute” nor “Residential heat pump water heaters” in Wikipedia.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO standards added, reference only.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:59, 27 May 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. Owen× ☎ 07:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean South America

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

WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2004. Not mentioned in any Google Books source, so likely fails WP:GNG. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and South America. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than an unsourced defintion. The prod removal is utterly absurd, if you think this is "not an uncotroversial deletion", you need to explain what makes it controversial. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be sourced. I found hits in Google Books, but not on the first page, and "Caribe sudamericano" brought up other hits as well. There are potentially usable sources on the Spanish and Portuguese language pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which Books results are you seeing? Beyond the first page of the Caribbean—South America plate boundary, the hits are tables where they are adjacent labels. Looking at the iw links and searches in Spanish, it still just seems there's nothing much more to say beyond that Colombia and Venezula border the Caribbean and this may be a convenient way to group them. Merge that definition to Outline_of_South_America#Regions_of_South_America or something. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various US Trade publications and some old guide books. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Tourism of Colombia calls that place “Caribe Colombiano” (I put a reference to the government page) so I think we just don’t know about it because we don’t live in Colombia, but seems to be a pretty notable geographical division for them. Contributor892z (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't live in Colombia either, but I have visited twice (mainly Bogotá and Santa Marta), and it is important to realize that it has at least four regions that are completely different from one another: the high-altitude cities (Bogotá, Medellín, Cali), the Caribbean coast (Cartagena, Barranquilla, Santa Marta), the Pacific Coast (Buenaventura --- which may look on the map as being close to Cali, but for altitude and other reasons they don't resemble one another at all), and the various jungles (close to Ecuador, and other regions). One could even add the two islands (Providencia and San Andrés) as a fifth region totally different from the other four. So it's not just the Ministry of Tourism that regards the Caribe Colombiano as a specific entity. Athel cb (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb Caribe Colombiano is already covered at Caribbean region of Colombia. That does not justify the need for this article. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never saw on any geography books that there is a Caribbean part of South America. Culturally speaking, I know that Guyana feels closer to the Caribbean than to South America, but I’m not sure this is worthy of an article. Contributor892z (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guyana is generally considered part of the West Indies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally considered by whom? Not by me, certainly, and I don't ever remember hearing anyone say that. Spanish-speaking South Americans are barely aware of the existence of Guyana and the two other Guianas, Surinam and Guyane and in my experience never mention them. (Brazilians are a bit different because they have territorial claims.) However, none of that alters the fact that the Guianas are in South America, not the West Indies. Athel cb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically they are certainly in South America. Contributor892z (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty short, but Colombians clearly consider their northern coast from at least Cartagena and the Rosario Islands in the west to Riohacha and the Guajira Peninsula in the east to be Caribbean. The food and culture in the coastal region is heavily based on the Caribbean. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are right, so I put the references (including one from Unesco that I got from the page Caribe Sudamericano) and now I am in favour of Keep then. Contributor892z (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I am in favour of Keep because it passes WP:NGEO: "named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Contributor892z (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a region, not a natural feature, and that portion of NGEO does not apply here. Anyway, I only see the simple statistics of cities in this area, nothing substantive that ties it together as something that needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is already dealt with by country in the articles for the Caribbean region of Colombia and Venezuelan Caribbean. Not sure what added value we get by having an additional stub article on the combined Caribbean region of the two countries. That said, Spanish Wikipedians who are more knowledgeable on the topic than I deem it worthy of a stand-alone article. See "Caribe sudamericano" on Spanish Wikipedia. I suppose it may also serve a useful navigational purpose if nothing else. Cbl62 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we might as well make it a DP. NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, if the Spanish Wikipedia thought this was notable, it probably is… Contributor892z (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally nothing in the Spanish Wikipedia article is about the region as a whole, it just lists the places in Colombia and Venezuela that are adjacent to the Caribbean, no analysis or useful sources. Enwiki does not have the same notability or stand-alone article standards and procedures as other wikis. I agree a dab page may be appropriate, though I question the need for the Venezuelan Caribbean page if it's just a list of states/dependencies that border the Caribbean with zero analysis of this being a defined or described region. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Venezuelan Caribbean page does look a little extra, it may be a good idea to just redirect it to the Caribbean South America page if this AfD results in keep. Contributor892z (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really annoying how this sockpuppeteer keeps creating new socks to try and single-handedly close this AfD. The rollbacks and blocks are appreciated. NLeeuw (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've requested page protection. I don't know who keeps doing this, but regardless of the outcome, this discussion will have its orderly closure according to procedure, and will not be disrupted by WP:SPA WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Study this one carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:59, 11 May 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!} 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers

AfDs for this article:

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

The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of primary sources and only 2 gnews hits which is surprising for an American organization. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. A mixture of references, including sourced published by Seeds of Hope Publishers, at least on not mentioning the company at all, ones which are only just mention it, and so on... JBW (talk) 20:47, 12 May 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 GMA Network original programming#Former original programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Saturday/Sunday Report

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits on GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. Most hits are old TV guide lists. Suggest redirecting to List_of_GMA_Network_original_programming#Former_original_programming as WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the last Afd

The suggested reference in the old AfD is from GMA's news network.
The suggested essay WP:TVSHOW that is used to argue for keep is well, an essay. It's better to follow WP:GNG and cite a reliable sources to support its notability.
It was part of a mass AfD which probably made it harder for editors then to scrutinize each article's merit during that particular period. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also there is also lack of coverage by GMA programming (old shows) and reliable source is original research. This article should be delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Icarus58 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I decided to delete no redirect immediately to avoid multiple redirects for old programs since it is not advisable. Icarus58 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network original programming#Former original programming per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 19 May 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 11:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Kerdyk, Jr.

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

I don't think this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements because the non-trivial sources are all localised/ultra-specialised in nature. Also, this article was created by Lisabofita, who has a self-admitted conflict of interest and paid editing relationship with the article's subject, and also moved it from draft to article namespace without going through the articles for creation process properly. Graham87 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The language used in this article and the sources used are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please specify the particular language of concern, and someone can review and revise accordingly. The language of the page is not grounds for deletion; instead, efforts should focus on improving the article. Regarding the sources, I have included a list below of non-promotional sources. If you believe any specific sources are promotional, please explain your rationale. Additionally, could you please clarify what constitutes a promotional source? Are you suggesting that the individual paid to have these articles placed? Please provide clarification and any evidence or reasoning to support such claims. Lisabofita (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion is using wikipedia to further a goal, such as boosting search result rankings. You don't have to pay the source to have it placed for it to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any part of the article sounds promotional please feel free to edit it or revise it. That is not grounds for deletion of a notable politician and philanthropist with dozens of articles. I have tried my best to not use any promotional language. If you can point out which exact parts are promotional, they can be revised by someone. Lisabofita (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been compensated for writing this article and have disclosed my affiliation on my userpage. Mr. Kedryk is a local politician in my area. We were introduced via a friend with the intention of my assisting in creating a page for him. I am uncertain if I am permitted to vote, so I am abstaining from doing so. Instead, I am posting a comment outlining my reasons for why the article should be retained.

He is a local politician with dozens of news articles about him. He meets:

WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage

WP:ANYBIO: Has won multiple awards

WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability:

Coverage includes:

4 articles in Community Newspapers 1, 2, 3, 4

Miami Herald

South Floriad Business and Waelth Magazine

Weekend Golfer

Lifystyle Magazine

Gables Insider.Lisabofita (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found additional coverage, not presently in the article:

- Miami Herald - This is very in-depth

- communitynewspapers.com - This is very in-depth

- .miamiherald.com 1

- miamiherald.com 2

- therealdeal.com - It is about a real estate deal, but should still count towards WP:BASIC. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lisabofita (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fully looked at BASIC, and I'm not sure I'll be able to for this one, but the well-known and significant awards of ANYBIO refer to things like Nobels and Pulitzers. The awards listed unfortunately don't quite make the cut. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that a previous version of this page, Bill Kerdyk Jr., was WP:G11 speedily deleted a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version is accessible on archive.org. Personally, I believe it warranted deletion due to its overly promotional nature and lack of citations for much of the content. In contrast, my version is significantly improved, devoid of promotional elements, and includes more citations. Lisabofita (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the creator being paid to make this page, I don't think Kerdyk is notable. Serving as vice mayor of a small city does not establish notability, and the articles cited on the page seem to mostly be articles from smaller publications or only mention him in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miami Herald is a widely recognized publication with a longstanding history dating back to 1903. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say it is non-notable. The subject has been featured in three distinct articles on Miami Herald, further attesting to their significance. Additionally, Community Newspapers has been in existence since 1967 and has also published several articles featuring the subject. It is worth noting that both of these publications have their own Wikipedia pages, underscoring their credibility and notability.

Moreover, numerous articles provide comprehensive coverage of the subject, including 1, 2, 3, 4, Miami Herald, South Florida Business and Wealth Magazine, Weekend Golfer and Lifestyle Magazine. I would like to emphasize that these articles offer substantive insights rather than mere passing mentions.

If you have not had the opportunity to review these articles thoroughly, I encourage you to do so. Upon closer examination, you will find that they provide valuable and detailed information about the subject. Lisabofita (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't even list any Wikipedia policies with your above statement which is concerning. Read up on our general notability guidelines and then look at the specific notability guidelines for politicians. – The Grid (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't read my prior comments. I named 3 policies above. How about WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability???
WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He has dozens of in-depth articles.

WP:ANYBIO: He has won multiple awards. Although someone has argued these are not notable awards. I do not agree as they are all from well known local organizations and he has at least 6 awards.

Lisabofita (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced primarily to promotional puff pieces from hyperlocal media.-KH-1 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the articles you consider to be promotional puff pieces and explain why you think so for each one. Many articles discuss his political activities and are independently authored by reputable sources like the Miami Herald and Community Newspapers, both of which have presence on Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that some articles might be paid or sponsored content? Lisabofita (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the vice mayor of a relatively small city is certainly not an WP:NPOL pass and all of the awards fall well short of an WP:ANYBIO pass-which is meant to be applied to national and international award like a Pullitzer Prize and not something like the "citizen of the year" from your town's Rotary Club. Additionally, WP:POLOUTCOMES has dictated over the years that local coverage of local politicians is to be discounted and a higher level of coverage is needed to establish WP:GNG. I'd also recommend the author of this article read WP:BLUDGEON. Given that paid-for articles on this subject have already been deleted at Bill Kerdyk Jr. and William H. ‘Bill’ Kerdyk, Jr., I believe that WP:SALTing may be needed as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not trying to BLUDGEON, but I must respond to your objections. Why do you think he doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"???

Please note that I was unaware of previous attempts to create a page for him. Those submissions were not made by me. After reviewing an old version on Archive.org, I agree that its deletion was justified due to its promotional tone and lack of sufficient citations. Therefore, the previous deletions should not influence the evaluation of my current submission. Lisabofita (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning. This is a textbook example of BLUDGEONing, which can discourage others from participating in the AfD. At this point I would recommend stepping back and let the AfD run its course with new editors giving their opinions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can COI accounts even participate in these discussions? I guess they can as it's not an article page but I think closing admin has to be aware of the COI. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can as long as the COI is disclosed. A COI/PAID editor badgering every editor's delete vote could possibly be a breach of Wiki-etiquette, though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I blocked this editor sitewide due to disruption but made it a partial block *just* so they could participate here (the results weren't unexpected, but I thought it was fairer this way, if anything). See their user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for CVs, and he fails NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SPAM, and many others; also specifically fails WP:NPOL for lack of any coverage except local news. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Garlock

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

Biography of a missionary who does not appear to be notable. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Liberia. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded this as it appears to have no notability. I still believe this to be the case and the article fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in here establishes notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nii Atakora Mensah

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

BLP of a content developer who does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ghana. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, appears to fail WP:BIO as only citation #1 seems reliable. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:46, 11 May 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) Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I

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

BLP of someone who is either a non-notable local ruler, or possibly, per this source, a fraudster. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Monarch for an ancient town. Not opposed to a redirect to an Aseyin of Iseyin article, but unfortunately that does not exist. There were indeed controversy regarding his installment after the death of the previous monarch, but all that has been laid to rest. Never really a "fraudster", more like multiple families using the media to protect their interest.HandsomeBoy (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on my works on monarchs from Nigeria, I find this to be a slim WP:GNG pass, especially from WP:BEFORE. Also, looking at WP:MONARCH. I have improved it to an extent too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 14 May 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. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Whelan

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [39] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't say that every winner will be notable but certainly the winner of the inaugural season of a very famous competition. Given the extensive coverage of her win and the controversy surrounding her allegations (later taken back) that Netflix was delaying the payment, I think the subject fulfills the criteria for inclusion. YerkaIlson (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone

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

This reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.

This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.

This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.

I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [40] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a merger is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just keep it as is while improving it. 20chances (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Invitation Tournament postseason broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NLIST is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 18 May 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. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Basin

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, 1 source providing a dictionary definition, plus an WP:UNSOURCED quasi-duplicate of Caribbean#Countries and territories list. Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea. It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago. Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore. Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD? NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later! I undid that and will vote ~~redirect~~ to Caribbean. The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept. The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time. No worries. :) NLeeuw (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page. Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article. The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region. Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [41] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [42] [43] [44] [45]. These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983, Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act. It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region. The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region." It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term. My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done. I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DP might be the best solution here. I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources. Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations. In someway, similar to the Middle Belt, and other regional articles, etc. The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative, instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader. In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article. In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one. I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further. On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted? African Diaspora get their notifications from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa. Many thanks.Tamsier (talk)
These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean." As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua. One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles." So what is it? The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent observation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR. We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind. If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR. The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion. In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it? Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is general agreement. Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases. The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador. Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that. We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability? Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable? Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability? SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean." That covers the territory. We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I liked reading this link from the article. It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions. You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them. But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article. So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article (WP:NOPAGE). Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for. I think a DP is the proper place to start. NLeeuw (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier. That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper. There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources. Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't. In my view, as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article meets WP:GNG. Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views. The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above. The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors. This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law. I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader. Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process, but also cheats the general reader looking for this article. Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better, but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea.
- You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison:
"Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin: the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.

"Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean: a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.

"Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea: The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.

I still don't see a difference.
- The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED.
- The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname. It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.
- The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake". But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.
- The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation, and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have..., which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin". If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
I rest my case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition. I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source. Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela." That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes. This gets to the point that @Nederlandse Leeuw and @Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Dclemens1971. I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4). There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these arguments are completely ridiculous - something is notable if it's been covered significantly by multiple sources, and many, many different sources use the definition to discuss an otherwise arbitrary geography. There's absolutely a good case for a stand-alone article - the article covers a term used to define a specific region, used in scholarly articles, that does not overlap any other term, and the books and articles that have been written on this area absolutely demonstrate that. That is what notability is - there's no WP:NOT. You just don't like it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I always love a good article on a term or concept that hasn't been properly covered elsewhere. I write such articles all the time (or at least, I try to). I'm open to "Caribbean Basin" meriting a stand-alone article, but I'm afraid I do not see it happening based on the arguments and sources provided on the one hand, and our policies and guidelines on the other. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy and guideline which excludes this, and it passes GNG as a regional geographic definition, including in sources not yet cited such as the New Third World, which contains a chapter on Caribbean Basin countries, again noting the inclusion of countries such as El Salvador. The arguments for deletion so far assume it's a generic term, which it is clearly not, and dismiss the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy and guideline which excludes this Well, I started this AfD by invoking WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNSOURCED, and later WP:REFBOMB. Subsequently, others have invoked WP:POVFORK, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Our arguments are based on solid policies and guidelines.

(For the sake of completeness, you and Tamsier are the only ones arguing for a keep, invoking WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Of course, the quantity of policies and guidelines invoked does not necessarily say anything about their quality and relevance for this AfD.) NLeeuw (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR doesn't apply since this isn't original research, and WP:SYNTH doesn't apply since we are stating what the sources say after a bit of cleanup. There are only 11 sources in the article at the moment. WP:POVFORK doesn't apply because Caribbean Basin and the Caribbean are two separate concepts. There's no good reason to delete this - it's a now decently sourced specific geographic concept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This needs to go to WP:MfD not AfD. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering

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

There's another article with the same title and same content. So requesting to delete this page. Evolutionary_tinkering iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series announcers

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Baseball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment radio is not TV.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Capital Sports Hall

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

Small sports stadium lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you mean with small sports? Handball is the second biggest team sport after football in the world. For your information the WC 2019 which was played in this hall hat at cumulative TV audience of 1.2 billion. Now to the hall if you google the Arabic name "الصالة الرياضية بالعاصمة الإدارية الجديدة" there are some stories like: [46], [47], [48], [49] 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the hall itself is small, not that the sports it hosts are small. As to the sources you’ve provided above, none of them offers in depth coverage of this particular hall. They just confirm it exists, that it seats 7500-8000 people and it’s part of the larger Olympic complex. They are either about the handball matches or about the Olympic city. The sports complex as a whole looks notable and therefore potentially a redirect target, but it doesn’t seem to have been written yet. Mccapra (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the sports hall is good enough with sourcing and notability to be kept here. While Arabic sources may not be the best, they do help fill the gap in sourcing. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If the article stays, it should be on the proviso of improving it and adding a lot more to it. Shouldn't stay as 2 lines. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn’t really anything to add though, that’s the problem. It’s not an expandable stub. Mccapra (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nothing at all? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 May 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 11:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ReliaQuest Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of those are about the Bowl games in general, one is about the BCS National Championship. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't meet WP:LISTN as this grouping is not covered in secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 12 May 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!} 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sourcing from [50] and [51].
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 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 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404. That source that is not a press release is a dead link. All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Texas. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN is not met as these broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 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 11:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mania (series)

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

The first game is absolutely notable, but I can't find notability for the series. The page has been without valid sources since 2010. It's best off mentioned on the page of the first game, i.e. in a "Legacy" section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree, the first game is definitely notable. The other games, not so much. The second game has some articles from Pocket Gamer [52] [53] [54] [55] and a preview from IGN [56] and this one [57] (technically a reliable source according to WP:VG/S). The sources for every game just go downhill from here because all I found for the third game was [58]. The idea to put it under a 'Legacy' section in the article for the first game is great. Props to nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went ahead and added a legacy section for the first game per comments above. I did find 3 different RS reviews for Cake Mania 2, so if you really wanted to, you could maybe make a standalone article for it, but I'll leave that to some other editor. One annoying thing was the games have been released on a bunch of different platforms at different times, and are all delisted from stores now, so I was struggling to find accurate release dates for all of them. In the end I just listed the release years and avoided going into specifics. CurlyWi (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Islam in Romania. Going with an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque of Bucharest

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

This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Romania, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best reason for deletion. The tangible topic that exists is the controversy around the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a keep I can go for at this point is a merge unless someone comes with a better reason to keep. Aintabli (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with what? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Romania for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:10, 18 May 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!} 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracefs

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 07:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, clearly fails WP:NSOFTWARE, as well as WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:48, 11 May 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 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level

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

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here. There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors. I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 11 May 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. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).

I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.

I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source. If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 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 2023–24 A-League Women. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 A-League Women finals series

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

Almost all of the article is already shown in the 'parent' article 2023–24 A-League Women, aside from a separate map with the subset of the teams that made the finals, so there is scant additional relevant information in this Fork to warrant a stand-alone article. The level of detail is equivalent to that shown in articles of previous seasons of the A-League Women Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To 2023–24 A-League Women. Svartner (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:11, 12 May 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. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant

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

Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pedantry, as per Chiswick Chap. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry. Orange sticker (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make good sense, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article. Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain. - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog. I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to pedantry. This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology. Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari (musician)

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

Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References for Lovari on Wheel Of Fortune (2023): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8rMTIQ2C0

https://bobbymgsk.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/wheel-of-fortune-1-31-23/

References for Lovari on Judge Jerry Springer (2022):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U78Iy9fFQkc

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt25965282/releaseinfo/

https://followmy.tv/episodes/2487792/judge-jerry/3x104/103

References for Lovari on Match Game (2019):

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/match-game-season-four-viewer-votes/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5672484/characters/nm2102281

References for Lovari in The Barn 2 (2022):

https://dailydead.com/horror-highlights-8-found-dead-the-harbinger-the-barn-part-ii/

https://hellhorror.com/movies/the-barn-part-ii-movie-7804.html

https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/trhs-random-chat-with-lovari/id1539578136?i=1000641962062

https://getoutmag.com/lovari-5/ 98.109.154.93 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added filmography and television appearances of the subject that reflect current dates through May 2024. 170.212.0.95 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Seivo

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Finland. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 18 May 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 Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahad (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; 8 of the 10 sources in the article are literally unreliable (Facebook, YouTube, etc.), and no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure if this is reliable either; this may be notable but a passing mention isn't going to establish notability of the film. I couldn't find any other sources that try to establish notability for this film, either. Additionally, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2019#October–December: It is listed there with the Mindano Times ref. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2019#October–December per User:Mushy Yank and WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:07, 11 May 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 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article on a likely unnotable battle.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article literally has no sources cited. Based Kashmiri (talk)
Keep. I remembered I voted on this page when it was first nominated but all the sources were removed without concensus that I added back. Vote is still keep noting two reliable sources by historians Bansal and Sandhu. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It could be considered disingenuous to nominate an article when the sources had previously been removed, so posting this diff from after last afd. That said, like many of these "battle" articles, the sourcing is weak and does not assert clear notability of the subject. It's worth noting also we should not conflate the term "historian" which can either be an individual who has had their work peer reviewed and verified, versus someone who considers themselves as such, i.e. self proclaimed (this seemed to form part of the rationale in the previous afd). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources whatsoever. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 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 but with prejudice against speedy renomination. The keep !voters consider a source reliable, which the rest of us may have difficulty judging. Clearly the nominator is not alone in disagreeing. However, shenanigans in which content including sources got deleted from the article while AfD was in progress may have unduly altered people's evaluations of it and thus the course of this discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

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

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the cited sources are WP:RAJ & outdated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS). Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content.. All other are poor to self published to unreliable WP:RAJ sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: All the sources from the page were removed by an editor while the AFD nom was in progress. It is an attempt to sabotage other's decision for voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangersRus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a simple look at the page's edit history confirms this. Thank you for pointing that out. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General Hari Singh Nalwa 1791-1837 (1935) is reliable and has worthwhile information on this battle. UnbiasedSN (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not one reliable source here. Closer, Autar Singh Sandhu's book was deprecated by an admin involved in SA topics in the RSN-For example, (link to Sandhu's book) is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer review articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search. There is only one book that can be traced back to Autar Singh Sandhu (which is cited here), and it was written in 1935, there is zero information available whatsoever on the author; on the extent of his academic credentials, tenure, educational posts, his bibliography etc. Given that AFDs are supposed to be based on merit and not enumerating votes, far less weight should be accorded to those who say Sandhu's General Hari Singh Nalwa is a RS, because it is undeniably not. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: This is the user who, previously mentioned, removed all the sources in an attempt to sabotage the voting process.
UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 May 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 which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler

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

This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.

Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.

As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Theatre, and Germany. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger, in Online Merker, includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length:
- "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!)—we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio
- noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain)—we don't mention this role
- a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance)—we don't mention this role either.

There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC. Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season (Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
  - @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
    
    Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
    
    "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season ..." (cut 14 June, read in source)
    
    Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 18 May 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.