Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Bharti Bharat Kamdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Subject is only going to contest in the general elections that is to come in June, being a candidate from a party doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL, and being a Chairperson of the Palghar Zilla Parishad doesn't pass WP:NPOL either. This is more or less too early. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:TOO SOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Maliner (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per above Claire 26 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Delete Unless someone finds something newsworthy this candidate did in their local government position this is too soon until they win. Nothing here really makes notability. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Tracy Grandstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

International Online Film Critics' Poll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
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 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oladipupo Timothy Clement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either passing mentions, unreliable, dependent on the subject, PRs, etc. Nothing to establish WP:BASIC here. Overall, very non-neutrally written and promotional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has been totally re-written, and all necessary observations have been implemented. Thank you all. Akowe1975 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
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 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ogaga Sakpaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are obviously PRs, advertorials, interviews, piecs that closely relates to the subject, and passing mentions, etc. No credible claim of notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wasila (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. While the Keep and the Delete views are balanced by nose count, the Delete ones correctly point out that WP:NARTIST must be read in conjunction with WP:BASIC. Giving extra weight to the P&G-based views, and discarding the clearly canvassed votes, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tal Slutzker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Knowledge (XXG) is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails GNG, and possible public relations editing by the editor responsible for placing overwhelming majority of contents into that article. Graywalls (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources are absent really, which is unfortunate really for a quite stellar artist. I couldn't find any of his work any major museums unfortunately. I may be early days hopefully. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough there yet, could be WP:TOOSOON BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the criteria for notability of an artist (NARTIST) is "The person's work (or works) has: ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (note the singular). The article lists 6 solo exhibitions and 11 non-solo exhibitions. His he.wiki article lists 20 exhibitions and 4 books. This is quite a lot. Here is an article about an exhibition he had at the Herzliya Museum of Modern Art. Here is a newspaper article about another exhibition. In order to decide that he fails NARTIST, it is necessary to decide that none of these 20 exhibitions count as "significant". This has not been done yet on this page and I'm dubious. To me he looks quite notable. Zero 16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to his exhibition at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Slutzker had a solo exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel's largest art museum. Coverage in multiple national publications, including Walla!News, Maariv, and Ynet also satisfy the superseding WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - A BEFORE search did not turn up much other than social media, some primary sources, interviews (primary and light weight with some questions like "What's your cat's name?" and press-release-based coverage, but no critical analysis in major art magazines or art history books. He doesn't meet WP:NARTIST either. Having a small handful of shows, even with a couple at museums is not relevant - that's just what artists do, they show their work like hundreds of thousands of other artists. A significant exhibition is being in the Venice Biennale, or Documenta, Sao Paulo Biennial, Carnegie International, or the Whitney Biennial. Appears to be a COI entry. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist, perhaps in a few more years he will be ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    It is simply not true that "hundreds of thousands" of artists have multiple solo exhibitions. It's not like they invite themselves, they have to be invited by a gallery which considers their work significant enough to take other works of art off the wall for a while. As for what "significant exhibition" means: who says? Looking at List of Israeli visual artists, I see many articles about artists with weaker exhibition histories. It seems that existing practice in deciding notability does not impose such high standards as you do. Zero 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Have you truly never heard of vanity exhibitions? (I'm not implying the same for our subject; I have no proof of any such practice.) It's similar to vanity publishing. In the country I live, as well as in a number of countries that I have visited, many a galley earns a living or compliments its living by hosting the latest masterpieces of amateur enthusiasts. I do not think badly at all about said enthusiasts. They have every right to their activities. And they contribute to the financial well-being of galleries. But, please, don't insist that all the "thousands of exhibitions" are done by gallery invitation. 'T ain't so. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@The Gnome is correct about the existence of vanity exhibitions, there are also thousands of pay-to-pay juried exhibits which are slightly different. An artist pays a fee to have their work considered for it, if the jury selects the artists's work, then the artist pays for shipping to and from the exhibit, and if they happen to sell work get 50% of the sales price. There are also many pay-to-play "art magazines" that are designed like actual art magazines or journals. The artist pays to have a page, or a two-page spread, or a "feature article". Native advertising and Advertorials have become wide-spread in the art world, as has Informative advertising. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Galleries always take a cut for artworks sold at exhibitions, that means nothing. Between 30% and 50% is normal. I'm married to an artist (albeit in a different country) so I have first-hand experience of this. Please provide your evidence that Slutzker's solo exhibitions at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art were anything other than normal exhibitions. If you don't have such evidence you shouldn't make assumptions. Zero 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm honestly sorry to say that for a Knowledge (XXG) contributor who's been around "for more than twenty years", per your user page, you demonstrate a surprising inability to understand simple prose. The whole of Netherzone's response is about the existence of vanity exhibitions. It is simply an affirmation that vanity exhibitions do exist; that is all. No mention of our subject, his exhibitions, or Israeli museums. Yet, you scold Netherzone for "making assumptions" about Slutzker. It seems you owe an apology. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The editor, who is admin doesn't understand current consensus for artist Afd's. The idea that they have to invited by a gallery is complete nonsense. I don't know where that idea comes. A WP:BEFORE found nothing for what a established artist would need for an article. scope_creep 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, I'm not making assumptions, Zero, but perhaps you are? There are several editors here with long track records of work on articles about visual artists and and who have participated in many AfD's regarding the visual arts (myself included); and are very familiar with the associated notability criteria for artists. The track record of this artist is very slim, they are at the beginning stages of their career. I can say with certainty Slutzker does not meet NARTIST. This is not a reflection on Slutzker or their work or their potential, it is simply TOO SOON. The critical art historical analysis of his work is absent, which we normally see for notable artists. In a few years once they continue to build their career, they will probably be ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not now. The article can always be recreated in the future once he is further along and there is better sources available. Again, I'm not saying this to disrespect the artist nor dismiss his work. WP can't be directory or resource for promoting the hundreds of thousands (yes, that's correct) of artists in the world who have had a handful of shows. The article does not have encyclopedic value. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
So, we're back to our familiar non-argument: "Knowledge (XXG) already has many articles about artists with weaker notability evidence"! When will fellow editors understand that this is actually a proposal to move Knowledge (XXG) backwards? To make the encyclopaedia worse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, we should be strengthening the integrity and rigor of the encyclopedia, not loosening our standards back to the early 2000s. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long reply to the details, but then I deleted it. I have better things to do than argue against this snarkiness, illogic and OWNership. Readers judge Knowledge (XXG) by what it contains, not by what it is silent on. In my opinion Knowledge (XXG) would be better with this article than without it, and you have not established otherwise. Zero 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Exhibitions don't count. Anybody can hold an exhibition. What counts if the artists work is owned by a mainstream museum, which they are not. The books don't have any reviews. They are non-notable. scope_creep 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zero, the arguements convinced me that Slutzker's works are notable and meet the notability criteria. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 00:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete due to failure of GNG. While there is one criteria of NARTIST that is met if you read it literally and narrowly, that same section says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This, for me, is one of those situations where the narrower SNG is delivering the wrong outcome that GNG expects. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Delete: Likely PROMO. There are no results to be found in Gnews; what's used in the article seems to be all there is. There is no listing in the Getty ULAN , telling me the artist isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NARTIST which lists as its fourth criterion only that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." His work has been a substantial part of multiple significant exhibitions (coverage from the former Channel 10 (Israel)) as required by criterion 4b. It further appears exhibitions include Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Israel Museum, and Tel Aviv Museum of Art. This interview describes him as "one of the most intriguing painters working in Israel today" (Google translation), this one from Yakum Tarbut mentions visiting another of his exhibits, and this one about his poetry (not sure about whether this one is a RS). In all, clear that he passes the WP:NARTIST bar and arguably also GNG but would likely require someone more versed in Hebrew to determine that. DCsansei (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    The links you present, DCsansei, consist of a press release announcement from the institution presenting the show therefore primary PR/PROMO; two previews based on press releases - they are not reviews, they are announcements for upcoming shows, therefore PR/PROMO; 4 is a database - back in the day we used to call these slide registries, where an artist can submit documentation of their work themselves - user-submitted or commercial gallery-submitted content; another is pure churnalism/advertorial content, thus PROMO. None of this is serious coverage. I'm not sure if the poetry one is a reliable source or more user-submitted content, it looks sort of bloggish.
    All this "coverage" amounts to is that there seems to be a public relations campaign to promote the artist, which is not the same as notability or SIGCOV. Again, let me stress that my comments is not a critique the artist's potential or creativity or character whatsoever, I'm speaking from decades of experience in the field of visual arts. Some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria. There are no reviews, no chapters in art history books, no track record of his work being in multiple notable museum collections.This is an emerging artist with talent and potential for a successful career ahead of him, however, it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to promote or advertise his work. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    With due respect, you are repeating the same arguments you made above which I reviewed prior to concluding that this artist likely passes the bar set in NARTIST. While you can assert that "some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria", perhaps we can assume that I read the discussion above (and am literate enough to come to a reasonable understanding of the NARTIST criteria) without going back and forth with the same points repeatedly? Also, note that one of the editors you assert is misunderstanding NARTIST above is an admin so hardly a case of inexperienced editors misapplying a policy. DCsansei (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    And one of the delete voters is also an admin. Having said this, it does not matter if they are an admin or not, their !vote does not hold any more weight than any other editor. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    I understand that. Was using the fact as a counterfactual to your implication that "some editors were misunderstanding" and referencing your own credentials in the arts which I may have mistakenly viewed as trying to belittle the experience of those who are voting keep. Of course, the arguments in the !votes are what matters. DCsansei (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sources. These two sources in the External links section, and seem the likeliest to count towards notability. Rupples (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Rupples, sorry, but I beg to differ.
    Art Market Magazine (the first link in your message) is a pay-to-play publication. , , . That is not how serious art magazines work, like ARTFORUM, Art in America, ArtNews, Domus, Frieze, Apollo, Art International, Modern Painters, Parkett, etc. with critical, analytical articles written by art historians. His work has not received coverage in any serious art magazine. Any artist or gallery can submit their work to Art Market Magazine, then pay a fee for space in the "magazine" once their work is "accepted" - in other words the artist or their gallery buys either half-page, whole page, 2-page spread, or "article" on their work. It's native advertising (sponsored content, branded journalism), it is an advertorial publication. It is analogous having a vanity gallery, and is not unlike predatory journal publishing in the academic world.
    The second link is a modified press release - it is a preview to announce the show, it is NOT a review. It's advance marketing. It's written in future tense: "on March 12 the exhibition will be opened", etc. These types of press release-based previews are to advertise the product (the art) by the gallery. It's PR, PROMO - promotional advance advertising masquerading as journalism. This has become much more prevalent in recent years.
    Again, this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, it is simply too soon in the artist's brief career for there to be serious SIGCOV on his work. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, missed that aspect of Art Market Magazine, so thanks for pointing it out. The Maariv source does provide a portrayal of the artist, but it's brief. Could be PR, not entirely sure, and in any event needs more coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    The Jerusalem Post articles via Proquest give further coverage of Slutzker. This one counts towards notability. His work being exhibited in two notable museums Herzliya & Tel Aviv MoA is indicative of notability. Would like to see coverage outside the Jerusalem Post. The other sources in the article/in this discussion don't cut it as far as notability is concerned, so as of now I'm neutral. Rupples (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some info and sources. SigTif (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. See WP:PRESERVE.Baculur (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: not included for whatever reason at the top of the article, but the seems to have dug up some significant coverage that has not been mentioned here. One editor notes that they found "2000, 2006 and 2011 articles from the Jerusalem Post are long profile/feature articles about this artist" on Proquest. They also note that a "gNews search on his name in Hebrew brings up stories about him in major Israeli dailes: Haaretz, Maariv (newspaper) and Yedioth Ahronoth" along with some shows that we have not mentioned here further reinforcing WP:NARTIST. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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 19:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Medtral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company for medical tourism. Discussed at Knowledge (XXG):New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board that it was set up by an SPA for promotional reasons. First AfD in 2009 closed as no consensus. Schwede66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

La Lionetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 20:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Barry Onouye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Writing a few non-notable books doesn't really make you notable, especially as not scientific or media sources seem to exist. It's been 14 years since the issue has been raised. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I missed this, but the first nomination closed as no consensus. Frankly, I feel the delete case is stronger here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I still don't see anything we could use for sourcing, same as the last time this came to AfD in January. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Change to Delete as per points raised by Allan Nonymous below. Qflib (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Keep. As I mentioned last time: "the page needs improvement but should be kept. This is an educator who has spent most of his professional career in architectural practice in an impactful way within the city of Seattle; see C7 of WP:NPROF...a distinguished chair and an annual studio have been named in his honor at the University of Washington, which are closely connected to C5 of WP:NPROF." This last has to be highlighted; an R1 university has established a named chair in his honor. That doesn't happen every day. Usually it happens as a memorial after someone passes away (he's still kicking) or the individual himself makes a donation to fund the chair (no evidence of that). The subject is academically notable and the page should be expanded on, not deleted.Qflib (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    C7, is a pretty clear fail, given his lack of any news articles, and uh... the endowed chair seems to have been a donation by a former student of his , so not sure that really fits C5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. That being the case, I’ll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be. I thought the name chair would be important but not for a former student. scope_creep 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uruguay national rugby union players. Liz 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Mateo Perillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (2022, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Abhishek Bablu Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and generally fails WP:GNG. Zero out of the current sources provide WP:SIGCOV, hence, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uruguay national rugby union players. Liz 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jose Iruleguy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he made a single appearance for his respective national team in 2020 and he no longer plays on any club team. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thushar Vellappally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, coverage seems to relate to his candidacy in the current Indian election. No sourcing to support claims of being a philanthropist. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Election for his constituency is completed on April 24, 2024 and this is not for the election. Just starting the page for adding more information. He is a notable politician and lot of political controversies are reported in the news. Links are added.(talk)

  • Retain : More reference were added to emphasize the notability. Mettleboy (talk)
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 Fujifilm FinePix. Liz 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

FinePix Z5fd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Anoosha Syed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So back in 2019, this BLP was a nom. for deletion and the consensus was to move this BLP to the draft NS, but it wasn't executed. Five years have passed since then. Upon conducting a quick Google search, it seems that the subject still doesn't meet the basic WP:GNG. Most of her work doesn't meet the standards for WP:N so she fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. Despite receiving Asian/Pacific American Awards for Literature, it's not adequate to establish WP:N. Therefore, it seems appropriate to proceed with deletion for now. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 Roxas City#Education. Liz 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Dean Alberto Villarruz College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former school with little to no coverage. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ilya Spiegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find nothing to indicate they pass WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. They appear to be just another politician who stood for election but were not elected. There is no Finnish article or any mentions on Finnish Knowledge (XXG) of them that I can find. There used to be a Russian version but that was deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails Knowledge (XXG):NPOL. Just being an unelected candidate for office does not guarantee notability. I cannot find enough independent, substantive coverage about the subject. Fails Knowledge (XXG):GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
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 Party of Humanists. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Lasse Schäfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL for not being the MP, and fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither being an unsuccessful election candidate nor being organizational chair of a minor political party constitutes an automatic notability freebie that would guarantee a Knowledge (XXG) article — but this is referenced almost entirely to directly-affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, and the only citation to media is just a photograph of him rather than a news article about him, and this isn't adding any GNG points either. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. As already ruled out by User:Espresso Addict a chair of an party with over thousands of member was, is and will constitutes an automatic notability. I find it especially disturbing that the person who opened the deletion called Lasse as an 'unsuccessful election candidate', clearly breaking the political neutrality of wikipedia. Additionally this deletion request comes now few weeks before the EU election fueling my suspicion. With that in mind, if one criticises the neutrality of the references, that's fine but its no reason to delete the article in question. G Utopia (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    As @G Utopia already mentioned, this party is very active with more than 2000 members in every federal state of Germany, even though they haven't won any elections yet. The current election for the European Parliament also runs until the 9th of July, and it feels wrong to delete an article of a candidate and chairman of a party that is currently running in democratic elections. Mcaraggiu (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    Knowledge (XXG) does not exist to be a repository of campaign brochures for current candidates. We're writing history here, not news, so the basis for an article is not "is he in the current news cycle today?" — it's "has he achieved something that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s?"
    So we have an established consensus that a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to become encyclopedically notable as a politician, and simply being a candidate in an election to an office that the person has not already held in the past does not constitute permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete leaders of political parties must pass GNG since there is no assumption they will have been reported on as a member of a democratically elected legislature, and he does not. Most of the links are to the party's page, and the one that isn't is a link to an under 14 basketball team showing he is the trainer. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Party of Humanists, where he is mentioned, and which is the context where people would want to gain information about him. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Party of Humanists, as an AtD. Fails GNG and NBIO. This might be a case of TOOSOON, if it is the material can develop at the target and be split and the history will be preserved. I'm not seeing material that would improve the target if merged.  // Timothy :: talk  15:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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. Fails WP:NLIST — CactusWriter 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sports teams named Trojans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tappytoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a Web fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (Web); Because it did not meet the conditions for notability. The company's history, adaptation, awards and nomination, etc. were not introduced. Also, there are no articles that can attract attention. It should be deleted or redirected to the list of webtoon sites in Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Haven’t done a BEFORE check yet, but every source shared by Maplestrip other than the Escapist is a reprinted press release Mach61 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 David Gilmour. Liz 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Barn Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Added plenty of sources. I don't get what your problem is. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Added a few more. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Some of the sources you added are fan sites, which can't be used as reliable sources on Knowledge (XXG).
The others only mention in passing the fact that David Gilmour recorded some jams in a barn a while ago. That isn't sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — we need "significant coverage in reliable sources". Popcornfud (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to David Gilmour: Some reliable sources included, but the mentions of these sessions are very limited. There's enough that it would be worth including on Gilmour's page (which does not currently mention this), but not nearly enough for a standalone article, especially after cutting out all the fansite/unreliable coverage.
And Dyolf87, while it's great that you care about this article and brough a number of sources to it, your edit summary comment "because Popcornfud is acting like a baby" is not gonna fly. Stop that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I've added a bit of detail about the barn jams to the David Gilmour article. I agree it's worthy of mention but I don't see this amounting to more than a couple of sentences of coverage based on what we have in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge (selectively) to David Gilmour - First, as far as I can tell the title Barn Jams has never been used to encapsulate these recordings as a group. The sources typically say something like "recorded during a jam in a barn at Gilmour's house", while "Barn Jam" has been added to the titles of a few tracks that were released later. So there is no precise item called Barn Jams to qualify for an encyclopedic article of its own. However, the jams in the barn have been documented as providing tracks for multiple Gilmour albums so that can be described at his page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

TV2 Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. There doesn't really appear to be anything to be said about this subject. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete unreferenced article that does not demonstrate any notability. The "I got 2 babe" network ID promo receives mostly trivial mentions in one or two independent sources of varying reliability I found on Google. The group is not specifically named in any of these. There is nothing of substance here to warrant a standalone article. The network promo itself could probably be covered by a single sentence in the articles for TVNZ or the "Other media" section of I Got You Babe. Dfadden (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Network promo campaigns are incredibly unnotable and since this didn't even have the perfunctory charitable aim to get everyone together, the song isn't even notable. We've long killed mention of promo slogans and campaigns in network articles (for the most part the crufters who insist this is important have moved onto Fandom) and a mention on the song's article would be as equally pointless. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hey, fair enough. I'm not here to debate the notability of the promo, I just found several articles in independent sources that discussed it, as opposed to nothing at all about TV2 Stars. I'm firmly in favour of deleting this article. Dfadden (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Epsilon Nu Tau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education and
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC). AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article continues to be improved even after winning an earlier Deletion prod that was offered, where the vote was to keep it. I fully disagree with the OP's statement that the article is "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". It is modeled after a number of acceptable, similar Start-class articles that the Fraternity and Sorority Project continues to support and improve. The rush to delete such random Greek-letter organization articles, without a comprehensive process or rationale is harmful to Knowledge (XXG). We track these societies, which number some 500,000, providing articles for those few who show notability with continued existence for ten years or more, and which have a regional or national presence of at least three chapters. This approach is consistent with major reference sources for this category that pre-date Knowledge (XXG) for 135 years, and which after long discussion and consensus building here, we follow. I do not know why the OP didn't alert the F&S Project of the AfD, but I have corrected that omission. Jax MN (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    We need secondary source coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I found and added a secondary source that provides significant coverage. That should suffice for proof of notability. I also did a quick copy edit that removed some of the content that was copied from their website. It is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, making it a legitimate organization. I have not looked through campus newspapers, but am confident that more non-fraternity sources can be found based on the locations of its chapters. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This is why editors should not concentrate on scoring Prods. Especially things like frats and radio stations, most would find, or already have, adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

G. E. Kidder Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Brighton & Hove bus route 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus route. WP:Run-of-the-mill applies here. --woodensuperman 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Rogério dos Santos (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability found, source is database only, Prod removed with statement that he received a yellow card for Kaunas which is not really adressing the issue at hand. A search didn't immediately provide better sources, but perhaps with different search terms better results can be had. Article in any case needs thorough cleanup, stating that he "plays" for a club which folded in 2012 is slightly outdated at best. Fram (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam National University station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source cited doesn't mention this station at all, could not find any others online. Please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) Toadspike (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)
2. This is, in fact, a different station from National University station in Ho Chi Minh City. Toadspike (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Little League World Series Championship Game broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also listcruft (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are YouTube links, some are not significant for a list and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Apache Software Foundation projects. — CactusWriter 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apache Ambari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. Passes criteria for WP:NPROF — CactusWriter 23:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Medixsysteme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy promotional page written by connected WP:SPA-contributors. Does not appear to even have a functional website let alone any rs's. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. Needs a trim. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Minesh Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Liz 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hiljson Mandela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable. The award "Cesarica" is not at all notable to value the importance of the subject. Upon WP:BEFORE, I could find 3 articles about him, which doesn't show notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • It's easy enough to find widespread Croatian mainstream media coverage of this person - HRT had them on one of their music shows in 2021, RTL interviewed him in 2022 and later hired him for their 'Masked Singer' show in 2023, and Nova TV covered his interview in 2023. There's a nationwide renown and it's a topic that might conceivably interest a few average English readers. Ultimately, if we kept Barbara Radulović back in the day, we might as well keep this. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Absolutely strongly disagree. I second everything Joy mentioned! He is one of the most successful young Croatian musicians/rappers. With 2 Porin nominations, coverage by the 3 biggest Croatian TV channels (including interviews and participating as one of the celebrity contestants in Masked Singer) + millions of YouTube views and a lot more (I get that you couldn't find it tho, but there's def a lot of sources), I would say he is undoubtedly notable. I'm willing to expand the article soon. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Dayari Balbuena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Dominican women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Independent Investment Advisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources provided in article are either linked to the subject (1, 5-9) or passing mentions (2-4).

User is likely COI, created a similar article in draftspace at Draft:Independent Investment Advisors which was rejected three times before they ultimately created a mainspace article directly by moving from userspace. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Credibly (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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:SNOW. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 520 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The definition of WP:NOTNEWS. Losing an inflatable slide mid-flight isn't something that's gonna get sustained coverage, and I know (not "I don't think", I know) it's gonna fail the ten-year test. LilianaUwU 04:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

why not request speed delete if you mr. einstein think you know (not "i don't think", i know) that this will 100% fail that nonsense test? like those random plane crash articles from the 90's that would definitely fail that 10 year test?? GeekyAviation (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
seems like you are going along with everyone else and seem to not know anything about aviation, funny GeekyAviation (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Your comments are becoming disruptive. If you have legitimate rebuttals to specific arguments, then you can voice them here. Otherwise, please let this discussion run its course. - ZLEA T\ 03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
"then you can voice them here." thats literally what im doing GeekyAviation (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You should actually state what’s wrong with their statements while providing clear reasons why you don’t agree whilst being respectful instead of criticizing them just because you have a different opinion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
do i look like im deleting peoples votes and not letting the discussion run? nope GeekyAviation (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
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. I think the NACTOR debate has been reasonably addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Kelly Metzger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. Dream Focus 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Knowledge (XXG) only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Aquarius Musikindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Doyle Owl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Mun Kyong-nam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. I believe this is the first article on a North Korean football player that has come to AFD that the consensus decided to Keep. Liz 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Li Chan-myung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect 1966 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep per sources from BeanieFan11 above Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
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 03:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Kang Jin-hyok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jang Ok-chol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics. I question the value of this redirect given that we don't have the subject's name but I'm inclined to close discussions with ATD. Editors can always bring this to WP:RFD if you strongly object. Liz 03:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Etchegaray (pelotari) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. It is unlikely sources can be found, as we know virtually nothing about him; not his first name, not his date and place of birth, not his date and place of death. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Nano Nuclear Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all sources are routine coverage and/or "contributor" or non-independent. Some articles about the broader technology mention the company in passing, but no real coverage of the company itself. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as TOOSOON to tell if this company will someday become notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Nodar Kancheli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Several sources discuss his work as can be found here. These are all in English. I'm sure someone who knows Russian can find a lot more than this. Considering this with the above points, I believe the subject is notable, and there is significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep I added some English references. I don't read Russian, but it sure looks like he is a Russian Brutalist architect. Check out the Druzhba Sanatorium - evidently still standing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Sanatorium "Kurpaty"
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 03:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Artur Khachatryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. The AIBA database entry shows he had 4 wins and 5 losses in his short career. His bronze medal at the European championships qualified him for the 2011 world championships where he lost his first fight (in the round of 64). I saw no significant independent coverage of him and no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have an editor review those sources at other Wikipedias and provide some concrete information or this discussion will likely close as Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article. Clearfrienda 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game: - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine: - Mika1h (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hum Awards pre-show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. One of many pages related to Hum Awards likely created to promote Hum TV. This one can easily be included on the main Hum Awards page assuming there are references that can be found to support it. CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑