Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 28	April 30 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint James (rugby union)

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject -- a Welsh rugby union player who played one pro game -- to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A couple mentions here, another trivial mention there, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Played one match for Cardiff due to extraordinary circumstances. Unlikely to feature further or have any future significant coverage. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A number of passing mentions, but looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 16:06, 6 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!} 22:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRZB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable LPTV. --Danubeball (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all five of the sources are routine directory entires, so they prove existence but don't hint towards notability. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 6 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!} 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Eastman

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

Non-notable baseball player. Majority of cited sources are transaction logs and other WP:ROUTINE coverage that does not establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and California. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dropping a couple of sources from his college days. Cal State Fullerton pitcher Colton Eastman could help lift team past slow start, Timely Return: Rested and eager, Eastman strengthens Titans Timely Return part 2, A Three-Pronged Strategy for Draft, Eastman could have tough choice, Tough choice part 2, Ex-Central standout Eastman pitches no-hitter. JTtheOG (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom here. Not really a notable baseball player. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only coverage is routine transaction reports any player of this level receives. No WP:SIGCOV is available for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 6 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!} 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCPX-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn’t find sources that justify keeping it in. Danubeball (talk) 20:49, 5 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. See comment below - However, sources have been located and nobody has argued against them in 11 days. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Siraj

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (WBUR, Wicked Local, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The two sources presented by Hameltion alone are enough to meet GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed that there's more than enough to meet both GNG and NSKATE --TJS808 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification, the nominator is correct that the subject does not meet NSKATE. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NSKATE is not as important as GNG. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in France). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does not fail Wikipedia:Notability and that's more important Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several users argue in a way that doesn't concern Wikipedia policy. Please consider replacing such comments with evaluations of sources in the future. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Mager

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE; an earlier PROD had been removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Maryland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since it has already been PROD'ed, it is ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with recommendation to delete, fails both general and specific notability rules--TJS808 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 5 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarilynManson.com

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

Largely unsourced collection of original research/commentary about what happens to have been on Marilyn Manson's website. Not inherently notable; no evidence that the use of the website is unique or notable in-and-of-itself. Includes numerous unnecessary external links. Fails WP:WEBSITE. Any minor content worth noting about the website can simply be part of Marilyn Manson. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got an edit conflict trying to nominate this; you've said exactly what I was about to :) Notability is not inherited, and the OR/fancruft factor means there's little left that can't be merged into the main articles on MM the band / MM the person if needed. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all reasons highlighted by nominator and first commenter. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy the requirements at WP:WEBSITE, and is full of non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination InDimensional (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Waqar💬 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This page's material would better fit a Marilyn Manson Wiki too.TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 5 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dillanos Coffee Roasters

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no independent coverage. Sources are promotional interviews, press releases, and a non-notable award. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 sources are X, 2 are interviews. Not enough coverage.Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside the references present in the article, via my cursory searches, the subject doesn't appear to have adequate independent sig coverage. X (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and user "X". There are around 33.3 million "small" businesses in the United States. Wikipedia does not need to have an article on them all (or any) because the company (owners are or other "connected" individuals) desires one. "Interviews" (agree with "promotional" per Nom), press releases, interviews (per Yolandagonzales) and other primary sources do not advance notability. I could not find multiple independent, significant coverage, per policies and guidelines on sourcing to agree with a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:02, 3 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. No policy based rationale offered by nominator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Strangler

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

There is no proof that the Chicago Strangler exists. As arrests have been made in this case, it's been a number of people committing two or three of the crimes attributed to this theoretical person. It is much more likely that, instead of there being one Chicago Strangler, the violence perpetrated on these women is instead a reflection of the way in which we do not value the lives of women of color, especially women of color who engage in sex work. Mhuertaschicago (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhuertaschicago, nothing you're writing constitutes a reason for deletion. We have lots of articles about theoreticized concepts. Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Agreeing with Geschichte. Regarding your last sentence, see WP:OR and WP:RGW Atubofsilverware (talk) 03:35, 30 April 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch Pizza

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Entirely primary sources and no independent coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to Wikipedia:Draftify instead. It's fairly new, and a quick search turned up articles from the Chicago Tribune, among others (new to this, unsure if external links are allowed here). I think this could be notable, just needs a little more time in the oven. TJS808 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and suggestion regarding the article on Antioch Pizza. I have taken note of your suggestions to consider moving the article to Wikipedia:Draftify for further development. I will review the guidelines and requirements for drafts to ensure that the article receives the necessary attention and improvements. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Tribune article is the only source of good GNG to satisfy WP:NCORP, the Milwaukee Business Times is unknown in its reliability as a source (though willing to change if proven). Besides if there are more sources published, Wiki is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL; this article can be recreated. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I am trying to research more about the topic and find some good articles to cite. I kindly request to not delete the article for now as I am in the process of researching more about this topic. Thank you. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteThe citations presented are not enough.Yolandagonzales (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I will take your feedback into consideration and work on enhancing the article by adding more credible citations from reputable sources. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company and we need multiple sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The sources must include in-depth independent information about the company. Sources that regurgitate company announcements or focus on the opening of an individual outlet usually omit any in-depth analysis/opinion about the *company* and fail the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a run-of-the-mill article about a small pizza chain. I appreciate that Ms.Aloisia has added 3 additional references since the article was AFD'd, but reading through they all seem to be fluff pieces that can't satisfy WP:NCORP WarpdriveEngineer (talk) 14:34, 5 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Una Mamea Park

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

Apparently this is some sort of a weird local controversy, it's been covered a couple of times by Jutarnji list [1], Nova TV [2], Večernji list [3]. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promotional activities, and at the same time the controversy itself does not rise to the level of being worthy of describing by the encyclopedia. Joy (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear from Jutarnji this is not actually a park but looks to be some sort of a scam. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Štrbački buk, which is the site where this guy has declared a park. This "weird local controversy" could maybe be an addition to that article, but not at this point one of its own. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with describing this on par with everything else there is that it would likely give WP:undue weight to the topic. --Joy (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, adding anything to the target article would have to be done with care. Redirecting without making any addition would also do just fine. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:55, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Irmas

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Matthew Irmas

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

A preliminary search for resources on Irmas provides little indication of notability per WP:NBASIC. The three citations are all reviews of films associated with the subject, failing WP:SIGCOV. The article is over a decade old and has been a stub the entire time, I believe both because the subject is not notable enough to generate much interest and because there has been little to add in terms of reliable, substantive, secondary coverage.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

Vegantics (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Directed 3 notable films, thus meeting WP:DIRECTOR. NB- I DeproDed the page today (same nominator; see article TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Is this the second Afd for this director?? Where is the first?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my inexperienced Wikipedia editing, I regarded my nomination for deletion earlier today as the first nomination, making this the second. I couldn't find clarification on if the nomination count only applied to those that underwent a discussion. Vegantics (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks (not a big deal, now that this is clear; this page can be moved (renamed) later). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vegantics (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CREATIVE#3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". He served as a director for three notable films and was also producer for the film Three of Hearts. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could definitely be expanded, but it does pass notability guidelines at this point in time. You can always try to make the guidelines more strict, but I don't know that there would be consensus in making them so strict that having 2+ notable films wouldn't give notability to a director.

To be fair, I think I know where you're coming from. However keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't limited to the same things that say, Brittanica would be. There are no page limits and we haven't been given any sort of austere limits on server space. Also keep in mind that what is considered to be useful or encyclopedic is kind of dependent on the individual. A page like this may not be helpful for you or I beyond entertainment value, but someone writing an article or book about 90s films could find it useful. If/when notability standards get strict enough to where a page like this would be deleted, then it can be re-addressed then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the perspectives in this vote. My interpretation of WP:N was that a subject should meet WP:NBASIC and only then be considered under WP:NDIRECTOR, but am seeing from this discussion that others read it diifferently. Vegantics (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 notable films should be fine for BASIC Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:57, 2 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Suarez Maceo

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

Fails WP:PERP. Also, he has only been charged, not convicted of a crime, so there's a chance that he's innocent. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Cuba, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's more in depth coverage after/if he's found guilty, then that's another story, but as of now this is in violation of BLPCRIME. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 30 April 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. per WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjog Waghere

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

A WP:BEFORE search on Sanjog Waghere has a lot of reliable hits but they are all about his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election for Shiv Sena (UBT) making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG and NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article itself has reliable links from before the candidacy. MrMkG (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. also failed WP:NPOL, If this were the criteria of Wikipedia. So today there would be an article about the candidates who stood and lost in every election. Come on and grow up please. Thanks you Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. To contest candidacy for political office, does not guarantee notability. The degree of significance of the subject and of his role whether as a 3 time corporator or a mayor of industrial city is not enough to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. few sources are present. I vote for deletion. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is a new account that rapidly made many AfD comments and got blocked for advertising. MrMkG (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources are there as nominator concedes. But it isn't a case of WP:BLP1E, there is a lot of coverage of him from before candidature. It's just overshadowed by the candidature. I'll link two below. Jolt to Ajit Pawar-led NCP as party stalwart walks over to Sena UBT. He is being called a "party stalwart" which should tell you it's not merely any generic local leader. पुणे: गढ़ में अजित पवार को बड़ा झटका, संजोग वाघेरे ने खटखटाया मातोश्री का दरवाजा (Pune: Big blow to Ajit Pawar in Garh, Sanjog Waghere knocked on Matoshree's door). MrMkG (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have only linked to articles that talk about his candidacy. Raut said they are looking to field Waghere from the Maval Lok Sabha seat. ”We were searching for a strong candidate to represent the party in the Maval Lok Sabha seat. We found Waghere among the strong contenders. We asked him to join the party and he agreed,” he said.

It doesn't matter if he is called a 'party stalwart', as this is what WP:BLP1E states about biographies - Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:50, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William van Wyk

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Purely trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia

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

Delete - I tend to agree this is trivia. It is a grouping of concerts and locations with little importance. While certainly the exposure of Kpop to Western audiences has grown, the composite listing of a bunch of concerts isn't particularly useful.Evaders99 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and South Korea. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this is trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the J-Pop article, I feel like this would fit better on a K-Pop Fandom or something like that. KaisaL (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:ROUTINE events. K-pop is global enough that not every instance of it outside of Asia is notable. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDB clearly random trivia with no real importantce Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary trivia. Plenty of bands perform outside of their home country. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 08:58, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kagiso Mohale

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

Poorly sourced cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Ineligible for PROD. No suitable redirect exists AFAIK. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what JP has found alone seems to indicate that it passes GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears the Cricinfo spelling of his first name is incorrect, on CricketArchive as Kagisho Mohale and a search of that name shows up more coverage. This, that and a Diamond Fields Advertiser piece found on Newsbank re his promotion to the Knights franchise as starters. 100 FC/LA/T20 appearances represents decent amount of cricket notabilìty. JP (Talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. While I don't think the first two sources contribute much (three-ish sentences of coverage and an interview), the third one is much more promising and an indication that there might more coverage out there to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spelling of his name differs between sources, but certainly WP:GNG passing coverage that JP has found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond what has been found, this should perhaps dictate logic should be used – if a cricketer makes this many appearances at the highest level, then they're probably notable. AA (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mention in the article the dual version of his name's spelling. I would say he passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources already mentioned there is another source here: [4]. Contributor892z (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a WP:MIRROR. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 4 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vesta, Indiana

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

Another "no there there" spot, I was able to penetrate the veil of searching and get a couple of hits that weren't reassuring. Baird mentions it in passing several times, once calling it a town and once referring to the post office, but doesn't say anything about it directly. A bank plat map of the county from 1918 shows the name, but there's nothing there but several farms. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A postoffice [5]. I've found nothing but that source that specifically addresses the nature of the area called Vesta.James.folsom (talk) 22:59, 1 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge City Crips

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only RS cited at the moment is an LA Times article...which doesn't mention Dodge City Crips. A WP:BEFORE search only turns up incidental mentions (eg. photo captions in tangentially related articles) or non-RS coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Searching for coverage of them in RS, I've found a passing mention in a book and a passing mention in a police magazine. The rest is social media. Wikishovel (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any other RSes beyond what Wikishovel already found. Subject doesn't seem to meet GNG. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 19:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 April 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!} 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook

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

Another collection of indiscriminate trivia, which falls into WP:NOTSTATS. Let'srun (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a couple of achievements (most triple-doubles, but not Best Dressed NBA player and not "set with Kevin Durant") to his article, which isn't so long that they need to be WP:SPLIT off. The rest are cherry-picked nonsense (e.g. "One of two players in NBA history to average at least 31.2 points, 9.1 rebounds and 10.3 assists in a calendar month").Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bagumba. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Changing vote to Delete after Bagumba's comments. In full agreement with Clarityfiend that the article is full of meaningless fluff like "best dressed" and an Espy Award no one cares about. "NBA achievements" is about 95% unsourced original research. Clearly created by a fan as opposed to a neutral editor. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Clarityfiend and HopalongCasualty: The career, single-season and consecutive triple-double records were already in his bio (and sourced). If there's nothing else to merge, perhaps deletion is ok?—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements already captured in the main bio, so nothing to merge. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 5 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVirus Gold

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. Shows up on a few "how to disinfect your computer" sites but nothing else. Previously dePRODed with a nonsense reason in 2008 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this is notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source establishes notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Laura García

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

She doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG / WP:NMODEL. In CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions and promo, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 03:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:42, 2 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. Good-quality discussion where sources were identified. The article still has a lot to fix though. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Worm of Error

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

Some coverage and significance but not enough to pass WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to sources already in the article, there's, for starters, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] - plenty enough for WP:MUSIC bullet one, at minimum. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This band is known in and foundational in the experimental music genre. They are credited for influencing a wide swaths of bands of today include Guerrilla Toss, Aids Wolf, etc. (https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2016/04/guttersnipe.html) and is taught in jazz conservatory school. I believe that this band is important to understanding noise and experimental music. I believe bands like Caroliner also have the same level of reference and are seminal bands. I believe FWOE is as deserving.

Based on the criteria for significance referenced (WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, they meet the criteria of being on notable independent labels including Load, Ecstatic Peace, Feeding Tube, and more.

I did a quick web search for reference and found the following:

They were # 20 on “Highest Rated Experimental Rock Albums of 2006” on All Music.

More links: interview, review in sputnik, Free Music, ADHD Weekly

Listed shows in New York Times,

The Stranger, ArtFuse

Also, another criteria is members being in other notable bands. Besides Deerhoof and Caroliner as mentioned in post, members are in bands such as Gloyd with Wendy Eisenberg, named "Best Experimental Music of 2024" by Bandcamp Daily, duo with Bill Nace, Buddies, and on RRR. Poster with Deerhoof. 172.56.113.104 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of coverage which passes notability criteria. Article seems well referenced and a look online reveals plenty more sources. InDimensional (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as Pitchfork, Exclaim, AllMusic, The Skinny and others which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 2 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Borges

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

This does not appear to be any sort of notable person; the article is just an advertisement for his book and/or company. The article was created by a sockpuppet, which is not promising – in the sockpuppet investigation, Spicy said "fairly obvious UPEs" i.e. undisclosed paid editing, like this thing. Any media coverage discovered in WP:BEFORE is stuff like "I ate like Beyonce & lost 16 pounds in 3 weeks" that mentions this guy in passing. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borges does not inherit notability just because he has worked with notable people. We would need to see reliable sources give significant coverage of Borges himself. The sources I saw were either obviously unreliable or only mentioned Borges in passing when discussing Beyonce. – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Teratix, notability is not inherited. The subject lacks significant coverage and generally fails to meet WP:N. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. his news is around being Beyonce's trainer, etc. I could not find any articles that are primarily about him. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be substantial in-depth coverage of the subject themselves or their professional activities, with most coverage being brief and primarily in relation to their association with high-profile clients. X (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Teratix, subject has no notability of their own Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article lacks independent evidence of the subject's notability and appears to be promotional. Waqar💬 17:06, 5 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Anonymous Theatre Network

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

the owner of the page has claimed this to be a historic no longer existing organisation and thus is outdated and irrelevant to information of the world wide web. due to its similarities with existing artist, the owner Alexander Parsonage has allowed for this deletion on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TazioLinse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage found of this apparently short-lived "network". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per INDY and SIGCOV. Doesn't meet notability guidelines either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:47, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katıverelim Rakıyı Da Şaraba Katıverelim

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

Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have an article for this, and sources return nothing. WP:GNG concern has been up for 7 years. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single source, per nom. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I see Tsifteteli is not a great article Chidgk1 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single non-RS and a quick search returns no reliable sources. This obviously does not merit a standalone article even if good sources were found. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 bad source and I can't find any good ones from a quick google search Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:12, 2 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!} 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafique Sayed

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

Does not passes WP:GNG. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete most references are not-reliable sources. Almost all titles have been doctored to sound like they are news articles about the subject when they are either about someone else (ie: the one titled "Rafique Sayed captured actress Shefali Shah on Vogue India" is actually "Shefali Shah on whether playing real-life characters limits or frees an actor’s creativity" and the only hit for Sayed is a credit for a single photo) or misrepresenting a non-rs source (ie:"Rafique Sayed article on Pixel Village" is actually just his own self-published Pixel Village profile). A draft of this article has already been rejected 3 times this month at Draft:Rafique Sayed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article with strong sources. The person is already notable.

The sources are not "strong"-that is why the draft was rejected 3 times already. You are still misrepresenting references by changing the title names to make it sound like they are news articles about Sayed, when they are actually about different people with at best a quick passing mention of Sayed and sometimes just a photo credit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The draft was not rejected three times. It was declined three times, and has now been declined four times. If this article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the draft should be kept. Not commenting yet on whether to keep the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 3 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 23:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Vietnam. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 15 April 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) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:54, 30 April 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× ☎ 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Thailand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT, but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] If the page does get deleted it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 15 April 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) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found. Deletion is not cleanup. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite sources, will never pass WP:NLIST. A list wihtout body text for context will never pass GNG too. This is 2024, not 2004. Wikipedia standards has gone a long way since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a tv guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 4 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yatra: A Musical Vlog

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

The subject lacks substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, and there is insufficient evidence to meet WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nepal. GSS ^💬 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. A search found only blurbs and mentions -- no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:25, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NX Files characters

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

There are no sources covering these characters, let alone as a group. I think its parent article NX Files isn't notable either, so redirecting should not be considered. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nom also mentioned, I'm not finding anything to indicate that the actual NX Files itself is notable, let alone this unsourced list of characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Martial arts, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Can't find sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NX Files (2nd nomination) for the series itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and possibly delete NX Files too. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As NX Files itself does not meet WP:GNG the characters do not either. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:35, 4 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× ☎ 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lord (music)

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

The article has a promotional feel. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject (or, frankly, any coverage). There is a reference in the article, but it's just album liner notes. toweli (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a copyvio of [[21]]. The promotional reek of this article about a nn musician is exolained.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is being updated. The article is informational including a Filmography that is supported by IMDb. 2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105E (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8001:9C01:8114:FD7F:3767:969D:105EIMDb is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the first source macworld is probably the most substantial coverage: 2 whole sentences, stating "Free Download of The Week" which I would say is very different to "Single of The Week". Allmusic does credit him in places as engineer/instrumentalist but the reviews on those releases don't mention him at all, and even if they did it's not like these are hugely notable albums. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:37, 6 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 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd

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

fails WNCORP , no sufficient reliable sources, nor general notability BoraVoro (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am ready to update the article based on your suggestions. Please let me know what changes are required on the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some more citations to the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WNCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently updated the article with citations, is it ok to close this discussion and remove the notice from the article? Akhare 2024 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more sources were added but none of them are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. I can't find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:07, 29 April 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!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SV Vesta Stadion

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

Fails WP:NSTADIUM, fails WP:GNG, no WP:RS available. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Caribbean. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tried finding some substance when I saw it in the prod feed. Geschichte (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article falls short of WP:NARENA and WP:GNG. It doesn't prove the notability of the stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZyphorianNexus (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia what teams plays/played there, in which case redirect to that team's article. Note that S.V. Vesta seem to play at a different stadium (Stadion dr. Antoine Maduro), so I can't work out which team plays/played there, and so cannot currently see a sensible redirect target. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks reliable sources to establish the stadium's notability WP:NARENA, WP:GNG, WP:NSTADIUM. Waqar💬 17:11, 5 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!} 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Egan

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

Sources are mainly mentions within sources about her mum, and notability is not inherited. The series she has been in are notorious for being series that every British actor has been in. I couldn't find enough to show she meets NACTOR or GNG. Considered merge/redirect to mother's article as ATD, but not convinced that would be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any wp:sigcov, named only in mother's obituary with no mention of her profession. Orange sticker (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG Waqar💬 17:14, 5 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 snow keep‎. The article is now well-referenced and compelling evidence for notability has been provided by multiple editors. Closing early as the outcome seems unavoidable. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS of Finite Groups

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm the author of this article (under the handle Gro-Tsen, which I've lost access to for technical reason which are beside the matter here), so although I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia for anything other than trivial corrections, I feel I should say a word. First, this AfD nomination exactly exemplifies the reason why I've stopped contributing: namely, that all processes are buried in bureaucratic procedures of extraordinary complexity and rigidity (a system which effectively gives far too much power to those people who have the time for these procedures rather than actually writing articles). To merely contribute to the discussion one is supposed to read a 5000+ word long page which in the end still doesn't tell me how I'm supposed to write and format a comment like this and I'm probably doing it wrong.

Anyway.

The notability criteria for books are insane in my mind because they are clearly written by people who had absolutely not thought about the very existence of science books: the criterion “the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement” for example, clearly fails to take into account the possibility that the book made a significant contribution to a scientific field (the words “science” or “scientific” don't even appear in the criteria), which is the case here. So, no, the book is not notable, as far as I can tell, under the kafkaesque criteria as they stand.

However, disregarding these criteria, if anyone cares about the reason why this book should be considered notable, in my mind (and why I thought it was necessary to start an article about it), they are as follows:

(1) The ATLAS isn't just a book about finite groups, it's profoundly intertwined with the history of the Classification of finite simple groups. This is for example witnessed by the fact that Mark Ronan's 2006 book Symmetry and the Monster (a popular science book about said classification and its history) devotes an entire chapter (chapter 14) to the ATLAS, its history and its importance in the general story of the Classification.

(2) Specifically, the ATLAS was the first to contain the character table of the Monster group (and possibly also the Baby Monster) before the group was even known to exist.

(3) The ATLAS isn't just a book, it's also an indispensable scientific tool, which is the reason why it has now been extended to a web site and a package of the GAP software.

(4) The ATLAS poses a particular epistemological problem to mathematicians as it contains the result of computations which have not been published, so relying on it in proofs is problematic. See this MathOverflow question for discussion about this. So entire scientific papers are devoted to trying to do without the ATLAS or to the question of how to reproduce its information. For example, this paper (published in Contemporary Mathematics) is specifically devoted to the question of checking the contents of the ATLAS.

(5) The ATLAS is extraordinarily famous and influential in the field of finite groups. Asking a group theorist whether they know the ATLAS is similar to asking a biologist whether they know the Origin of Species. I don't have direct evidence for this, but the first paragraph of the paper mentioned in the previous point quotes Jean-Pierre Serre as saying that he “can’t think of any other book published in the last 50 years which had such an impact”.

(6) Merely as a physical object, the ATLAS is remarkable for its size and format.

Now I won't be contributing any further to this discussion because, again, the tediousness of having to do this kind of bureaucratic justification is exactly what drove me away from Wikipedia. But please feel free to either ignore or else reuse the above facts (and, if the consensus is to keep the article, incorporate them in its content).

-- 2001:41D0:FE6F:4800:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the existence of two book-length volumes dedicated to the book - one in 1995 and one in 2015, both of which are now cited in the article. Guidelines say to consider how influential a book has been in its area, and even as a person unfamiliar with the topic I can tell from the quality of google scholar results that this is a book for people have reverence. So I appreciate you putting this in context, and I think the two results will illustrate its impact but any additional cites talking about its influence could help sway fence-sitters. Oblivy (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that Gro-Tsen writes here is one hundred procent true. "The Atlas" is well known among mathematicians and absolutely central in the finite groups community. It is also rather unique. One should understand that finite groups, and more particularly the classification of finite groups is one of the central problems in mathematics. The quote from Jean Pierre Serre is spot on, and Serre is an extremely highly regarded Abel prize winning mathematician.

There is absolutely no reason to delete the article on this book, and in fact I whole heartedly agree with him that being a highly influential scientific work, is clearly an excellent criterion for being a notable book.

Put it in other way: Conway's Game of Life has a Wikipedia Article. As fun and well known as it is, the Atlas towers well above the Game of Life in his achievements. RogierBrussee (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable work in the field of group theory. Google Scholar is not great for turning up contemporary scholarly reviews from the 1980s, but here are three: [22], [23], [24]. It's discussed at length in Siobhan Roberts's biography of Conway, and it was the subject of conferences and their proceedings in 1998 and 2015. Jfire (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a fourth contemporary review: [25]. XOR'easter (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets WP:NBOOK criterion #5 due to being co-written by John Horton Conway, certainly one of the top mathematicians of the 20th/21st Centuries, and likely longer than that. Central and Adams (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. --Zundark (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Oblivy's improvement, adding citations and fulfilling WP:HEY. Apologies to Gro-Tsen for being Kafkaesque. Toughpigs (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most noteworthy pure-mathematics books of the 20th century, cited in excess of 6,000 times [26]. Yes, it deserves a Wikipedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough coverage above to meet WP:NBOOK. Another review can be found here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously). Is it WP:SNOWing? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The classification of groups was one of the great math projects, if not the greatest, in the 20th century. (I'm almost surely mis-remembering, but perhaps a thousand mathematicians were involved, and it took 50-odd years of work. Of course, this is not all captured in these books, but its... really I don't know the history, but its some kind of wild mega-project like this.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 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!} 11:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Butler (Irish politician)

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

Last week I’d proposed this article for deletion. In the time since, some attempt has been made to demonstrate notability. However, I’d argue that he still fails notability under WP:POLITICIAN. The references added show no more than would be the case for anyone who happened to by mayor or cathaoirleach of a council (local coverage of their election, welcoming reports, expressing condolences), but none of which amounts to WP:SIGCOV of the individual themselves. A WP:BEFORE search of "Daniel Butler Limerick" returned only similar information. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Or, failing that, redirect to Mayor of Limerick (as an AtD). In terms of NPOL, the role of chair/mayor of Limerick council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article (and seemingly available) represent the same type of coverage that we might expect for ANY local councillor or political candidate. The sources and coverage, for example, which were added alongside the dePROD, are either the very definition of trivial passing mentions or mentions in coverage of activities (like opening books of condolence) that anyone in the same job would have undertaken (ie: coverage relevant to the role rather than the biographical subject). Except for the fact that this subject is a candidate for the planned/upcoming 2024 Limerick mayoral election, there is nothing material to differentiate the subject from other councillors/candidates. Neither role affording inherent notability (and candidates for office also not being inherently notable).... Guliolopez (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not sure how necessary it is to consider ATD here. The article was published relatively recently, so I doubt there are many external links pointing here. I don't think we'd consider redirects for all the other mayors of Limerick who don't have articles. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. A local politician who gets the usual mentions in the local news. Spleodrach (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is the third-most populous region in Ireland, so I think it would be easier to show he has outsize influence for his role, but that is not the case yet here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note The article's author, and one of the main contributors, are both socks of the blocked user Cartoons2022. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, lacks otherwise significant coverage in secondary sources. Also per WP:BANREVERT as created by sock of blocked user. AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Auslondoner Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:16, 2 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!} 11:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports television composers

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

Not that all but one is entirely unsourced but WP:LISTCRUFT sums it all up. Virtually all of those bluelinked are not specific to sports broadcastings; for example, a bulk of John Williams' fame was from movie composing. Are we going to every film and TV composers who worked on the Olympics too. Are we going to list Emerson, Lake & Palmer (Fanfare for the Common Man) and Fleetwood Mac (The Chain) too? I cannot see this passing WP:NLIST too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nothing but trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to have some people who work exclusively in sports programming but there are probably many more; and it also throws in some notable composers (as mentioned by the nominator) who happened to sell a few things to sports programs but there are probably many more of those as well. Simply not a tenable list per the requirements at WP:NLIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Svartner (talk) 08:56, 6 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!} 11:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systogram

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

The author of this article appears to have created it merely to plug his own creation ("Jack Dikian invented the concept of the systogram..."). However, of all the references in the article, none appear to actually refer to a "systogram" apart from those authored by Dikian. So I can only suppose that the concept is not-notable and the article was created only for self-promotion. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator edits practically only to promote himself, this article is nothing more than advertising for himself. GraziePrego (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing I can say that the original nom hasn't already said better. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. Samoht27 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotional and maybe block creator too as a spammer Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article appears to be primarily promotional in nature. Waqar💬 18:01, 4 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!} 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia

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

WP:TRIVIA ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Japan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow... that's a huge body of work. The list feels strongly in WP:NOT territory. The lede is irrelevant to the topic of concerts, and the list thus lacks an explanation of why this is a relevant list. It's certainly not because such concerts are rare. The listed concerts are certainly vastly different in size too. Also, if the idea is to handle Japanese penetration of other music markets, why limit it to J-pop and exclude J-rock, metal etc.? Why even limit it to non-Asian countries, seeing as a concert in Lebanon would be just as "exotic" as one in Cyprus? Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys! Just to point out that, although the name of the list "List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia", it lists concerts by bands of any music style, such as j-rock and metal. As to why limit to non-Asian countries, I do not know why, but I did contribute substantially to the article and I feel it is important to have records of the outreach of these bands. Maybe it's just the fan in me and I'm overstepping WP boundaries. Macacaosapao (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm indifferent to whether the article should be kept or deleted (though the latter would save me a buttload of work), but I'd like to point out there is a similar article titled List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, for which this discussion should also apply.DragonFury (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also generally unsure because essentially this is genuinely useful information somebody might choose to look up, and policy sometimes doesn't cover that. At the same time, while the older data is useful, the globalisation of music and the fact it's seemingly becoming a list of Babymetal dates makes it feel less important now. The information should at the very minimum be preserved. KaisaL (talk)
Delete - a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:ROUTINE events. J-pop etc. is global enough that not every instance of it outside of Asia is notable. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary trivia. Plenty of bands perform outside of their home country. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far-fetched topic by my and others' reasoning above. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 6 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 Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes on Mr. Smit's Ostrich Farm

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

No evidence of notability for this 2 minute film, just included in some websites but without significant attention (e.g. this or this). No obvious redirect target found, if there is one then redirecting is of course acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator): Which is an obvious R target, as I mentioned in my ES when DPD the page and on creator's TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Rosenthal (camera operator): I am not seeing much coverage.Hkkingg (talk) 14:56, 30 April 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 New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalek Generation

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

Fails WPNBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why not Sansbarry (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How bout the fact that almost everything is unsourced? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. So far I have seen only the one review by Starburst linked in the article, so I agree that this fails WP:NBOOK. No reason to loose the link to that one review, though, so this reference plus a brief plot summary should be merged to the parent topic as WP:Alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 1 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 New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by an Angel (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs edits and citations, especially the release info Sansbarry (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find those sources and then vote keep. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. Daranios (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. I wouldn't oppose a merge, but when I tried just now to add a few sentences on the plot to the target, I couldn't see a good place for it. There's a lot of great fan-wiki material here, but luckily, it is already preserved on the fan wiki. With no sources for NBOOK there is no need for this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: While there isn't a perfect place as the suggested target site is currently formatted, I'd say one can fit in a brief plot summary in the "Notes" column. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 6 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Shining

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

I am nominating this article for deletion due to significant concerns regarding its notability and the reliability of its sources. Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below:

Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include:

Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.

Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.

Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content. Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.

Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs · count) was able to find archived versions of many of the previous broken links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1221337540 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a notable photographer and has contributed to multiple notable publications. We don't delete articles because of dead links or offline sources. The WSJ article and the Rapid City Journal articles provide significant coverage about him and provide biographical details about his life. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Photography, and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The sources already in the article much, much more than satisfy the GNG. Extraordinarily misguided nomination. Central and Adams (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass notability and there's nothing wrong with offline sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:05, 2 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!} 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTVS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Mexico LPTVs. Logo kinda goes hard tho Danubeball (talk) 20:25, 5 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!} 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNMQ-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or throw into New Mexico LPTVS. Danubeball (talk) 20:18, 5 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in the Moon (album)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. Complete absence of in-depth discussion of the album in reliable sources. Brett Milano of New Country magazine is cited, but that was a short-lived marketing effort for the purpose of promoting new country music. In no way would that magazine be considered independent. Note that AllMusic does not have a prose review by a named author. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep after recent expansion with multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Lil' Cory

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

Non-notable rapper / actor. All the sourcing is from unreliable sources, or simply not usable for establishing notability. This has been insistently placed in mainspace after previously being draftified so taking this to AFD. Whpq (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Subject has collaborated with other notable persons such as Lil Wayne, Rick Ross, Gucci Mane, Rittz, Blueface as well as an actor on Star Trek: Picard and Reservation Dogs. Subject was also nominated for a Native American Music Award Wolfvillage (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Subject has also played on television shows such as Reservation Dogs and Star Trek: Picard.Collider - (Award Winning News Company Collider) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfvillage (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

DELETE as was stated in my decline notices none of the sources provide any sort of significant coverage or any indication of notability either in WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited through others. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collider.com Wolfvillage (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were merely mentioned as a cast member absolutely no detail was given in that source, therefore it does nothing towards notability. It only confirms they made an appearance at some point on the show which does not indicate any sort of notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some links supplied by sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Native American Music Awards Wolfvillage (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo.com Wolfvillage (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Cory On "All Night Nippon Japanese Show Wolfvillage (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic "Echota Yoda" (Featuring Lil Wayne

TVGuide

Lil Cory Featuring Blueface

I found these sources which speak on the subjects major collaborative projects with notable persons such as Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfvillage (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and article created by a blocked sock. Non-notable rapper with no chart activity, and filmography is mainly uncredited bit parts. Sources are awful (Bsapr, IMDb and a bio on Amazon) while Collider mention is a blip at the very bottom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Corporate Rumble

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

Primarily worked on by a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this. Full of non notable participants and just a results listing. Only coverage seems to be in Perthnow. but fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article on a non-notable event sourced with only local coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability for this event and I don't believe the coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The event is a highly notable event in a major Australian city, it has 1 main contributor, as no one else is willing or able to contribute. Additional information and links will be added in the coming weeks as to comply to all Wiki requirements.

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 Pizza#Dessert pizza. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dessert pizza

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

Not a common misnomer for either of the pages it links to. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get over a million ghits for "dessert pizza", [27] (your results may vary) so it's a common name for something. There's room for expansion but this is at least a start, and will get readers to what little information we do have. Help expanding to an article, or adding articles perhaps on choc chip pizza, apple dessert pizza or raspberry dessert pizza welcome. Alternatively I can reformat it as a stub, but a DAB seemed more appropriate at this stage as we do have information which might otherwise be missed. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza after creating a section there for sweet pizzas. There is no mention on that page of "chocolate" or "fruit", as yet, not even a "See also". There should be a section on sweet/dessert pizzas (however sacrilegious they may be considered) in that main Pizza article. PamD 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza per PamD. "Dessert pizza" is a wildly diverse concept where you can get creative with your favorite dessert and favorite pizza style, not something you can really have a cohesive article on – the links above are just food bloggers' recipes, not reliable sources that discuss the topic as a whole and could be used here. I like how there's a whole section at Fruit_pizza#Controversy saying that the only resemblance it has to pizza is the round shape (recipes there being more of a topped Cookie cake). Alternatively, Chocolate pizza could be moved and formatted to cover multiple dessert-type toppings, but I don't think there should be a third article in this space just because you can make an apple pie or raspberry pie on a pizza crust instead of a pie crust (the recipes above would fit into these extant pages anyway!). Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'm hesitant to say the article could be kept as it is simply a navigational page for two types of dessert pizza. Instead, the section in Pizza I think satisfies this quite well. Conyo14 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pizza. I would make a joke about how every pizza can be a dessert pizza, but I'm above that. With that said, there is an obvious future target in the main article about such a thing, and this title should lead there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pizza, Dessert Pizzas are a notable phenomenon, however they are a topic that is so vague as to mean almost anything, thus a redirect to a section on the pizza article would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... is Pizza#Dessert pizza (a new section stub) a suitable destination for the redirect? Discuss at Talk:Pizza#Dessert_pizza. Andrewa (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded that section a bit, with a few sources, and links to the two existing articles. PamD 07:52, 6 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. No prejudice against merging, moving, or anything else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry

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

Completely unsourced barring quotes. No indication of importance. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic, so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify, convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 22 April 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) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is fo-shizzle notable. It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles. I don't think draftify is warranted here. It can be fixed being on the main space. X (talk) 12:43, 3 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slatecut, Indiana

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

Another post office back entered to GNIS from the 1876 state atlas: at least that's what Baird says, and given that it seems to be a nondescript rail point, I can believe that. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The second source (published in 1995) on this article states that it was simply a post office. this source on places in Indiana, lists it as a postoffice only. [34]. Let's delete this post office.James.folsom (talk) 21:16, 5 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!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [35]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [36], [37], [38]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 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) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 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!} 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [39], [40], and [41], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 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) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 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!} 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit

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

Article describes abandonware, all links now lead to a content farm. ojdo (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am the major contributor to this page. I agree this is abandonware and the page should be deleted. 2620:10D:C091:500:0:0:4:4ABF (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 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.