Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 23

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 no consensus‎. This does not preclude merging or redirecting the article. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu

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

Can't find anything but postal directories about this village — not even its coordinates. Unsourced since creation in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND - is a census designated place, has a post office, has government recognition. BrigadierG (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep cited in administrative reports which searched for graphite in the 1960s, listed in directories of rubber estates as a town, but most importantly cited in the Indian census: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)
  • Question: Per my earlier comment, is Memadangu really Mekkadambu? Geschichte (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: Apparently so. I am amazed that nobody else cared to reply. My search brought back the same. I hope everyone understands that JUST using "WP:GEOLAND" does not make a location inherently notable. A subdivision, that may be barely notable, might be better in a more general article where notability may not be questioned as GNG, at the least, must be satisfied. There are actually reasons why Wikipedia has PROVEIT and HEY. Already "small mountains, rocky hills, rivers, paddy fields, rubber plantations and pineapple plantations" can be removed as lacking in line citations. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, GEOLAND is one of our weakest notability requirements. If we can verify it's a populated place, we're allowed to have an article on it. A subdivision doesn't count. SportingFlyer T·C 11:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards redirecting to Arakuzha or deletion. The only quasi-reliable source that shows Memadangu is a place for GEOLAND is the census entry. It's a spreadsheet entry with nine numbers that lists Memadangu as part of Arakkuzha. Per GEOLAND,Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. – I've looked through all the links provided here and have not been convinced this isn't some census-generated subdivision of Arakuzha. The links to news sites showing that there is a post office in Memadangu are irrelevant to me. The existence of a post office does not prove that the location it's named after is a populated place, and as Geschichte pointed out, there's also one of those post office entries for a bus stand, which is clearly not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective TV, Inc.

AfDs for this article:
Selective TV, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the necessary coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. A 2010 AfD closed as no consensus but notability thresholds have changed significantly in the past 14 years. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television: this is probably the best available alternative to deletion here (the most substantive content, the table of stations, is basically already there), though given that this article is about a non-profit corporation and not necessarily the stations themselves I do not oppose outright deletion as a NCORP failure either. Even the long-abolished separate and looser inclusion standards for broadcast stations eventually frowned upon giving relays of other stations or national services (which is all Selective TV's stations do) articles for lack of separate notability. The "keep"s from 2010 don't appear to be what would be considered as "policy-guideline based" today, largely relying on the "FCC-licensed broadcast stations are presumed notable" stance that was finally put to bed after this 2021 RfC that pivoted to requiring significant coverage — but as this article really falls under NCORP rather than GNG, it falls under stricter standards that don't count purely-local or most trade coverage toward notability (and the lone "delete" from the 2010 nomination, noting the lack of SIGCOV, does express a view that is more in line with 2024 standards than was usually seen in the broadcasting topic area 14 years ago). In the end, this is a remnant of the looser standards of 2010 — and the "no consensus" suggests that any perceived "notability" was the bare minimum at most. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballymoreen (disambiguation)

Ballymoreen (disambiguation) (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 now only two articles about this topic: Ballymurreen (also known as Ballymoreen), an article which includes the electoral district; and Ballymoreen (townland). See Talk:Ballymoreen (disambiguation)#Merger proposal which appears to have been executed. A disambiguation page is therefore not now required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Kyazze

Doreen Kyazze (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 reviewed this article thrice to determine whether it is considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Firstly, I saw there were good sources as though a reviewer will do. I now checked the sources and almost a good percentage weren't reliable per WP:RS. Religion of sources and lack of WP:SIRS definitely defined this type of article.

In second checking for confirmation, I discovered so many sources lined her perhaps a single line other quote while addressing her as a worker at Penal. I would have said this should be redirected to the organisation page but didn't see any advocacy worthy enough for WP:ATD. Another subtle was drive by the award nomination. This cannot be called WP:ANYBIO since it was once nominated and wasn't won (it's is also a lesser award, thus not major like ANYBIO. I've therefore brought this to the table proper discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to tradition (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)

Very poorly cited and not at all neutral

  • You have now presented the worst arguments I have ever seen in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Please be more serious in the future, as what you are currently engaging in is approaching disruptive editing. Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I should’ve done is apply a POV tag and comment on what needs to be improved Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just frustrated at the topics relation to a wider problem in European societies, we lost a lot of our culture and tradition when we industrialised and this topic attempts to destroy the few remnants Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have misunderstood both the purposes of AfD and the subject of the article you nominated here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wrong to go via afd, I should’ve used a tag and the talk page. The subject implies that following tradition is illogical, and I think that violates NPOV. I think there needs to be a section on the logic or rationale of tradition, whilst also explaining where this fallacy is applicable. Whether following tradition os logical depends on how each person values tradition and the goals they have. (I honestly don’t think it’s a fallacy, it’s just people’s reasoning. Labelling it a fallacy is just a way to dismiss people’s genuine concerns, but obv we have to go w RSs) Kowal2701 (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ori

Frank Ori (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 this American football player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. The most I did find was a few sentences here, which is not totally unsurprising considering he was a replacement player who played three NFL games. JTtheOG (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khar-polis

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

No sources found. Zero citations for 16 years. External link is a YouTube video called "KHARPOLICE 2" purporting to show "Iranian men playing Kharpolis" at Cachuma Lake, California, in 2010. (And the only comment on the video is "CHINCHE AL AGUA" which I guess is supposed to verify that the Mexican game is the same as the Iranian game.) Either this is WP:OR or possibly even WP:HOAX. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous AfD in 2008 addressed only WP:NOTGUIDE accusations and did not address the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only edits by the creator were to create and crosslink this article at 17:25, 29 September 2008. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one can find pictures of this game online, such as at [14], so I would exclude a hoax. I assume reliable sources, if they exist, would be only available in Farsi language. Broc (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zamil Steel

Zamil Steel (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)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn (defender)

Harry Dunn (defender) (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'm a bit unsure about this one, as he seemed to have a rather robust career, but it was entirely at the non-league, semi-pro level. There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a "delete" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but out of respect to the previous relister who sought a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, this should have one final relisting to allow for some additional discussion, any at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to have been pretty prominent; though searching isn't helped by the fact that the same team had another prominent Harry Dunn at the same time... There's an interview here, and while an interview, it does note that "Harry became a legendary player for Scarborough Football Club. ... Harry Dunn, in what was a 22 year period from 1965 to 1986 you played over 900 games for Scarborough FC, you scored many goals and created many more. You had well over twice the number of appearances of any player in the Club’s history and well over three times the number of appearances by any local player. You have been described as: -the ever present Harry Dunn -competent, reliable and dependable -a calm presence on the field -a gentleman on and off the field – everything that was needed for a team captain to lead Scarborough Football Club to the success it enjoyed and particularly to those Wembley victories." Also some briefish pieces on him: [15] [16] [17] [18]. Kind of expected more... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess newly found sources. Otherwise a Redirect to a players' list might be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The three sources in the article and the interview linked by BeanieFan are enough, in my opinion, to meet the GNG. Add to this an excellent claim to notability, far beyond what I'd expect for a run-of-the-mill football player stub that gets taken to AfD. I don't have access to British Newspaper Archive, but those links at least show there's some "offline" coverage, as would be expected. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Clark (Politician)

James Clark (Politician) (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:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As usual, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding the office, while a candidate gets to have an article in advance of the election only if he can credibly claim to have already established permanent notability for other reasons besides the mere fact of being a candidate per se. But this makes no such claim, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would somehow pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after July 4 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Arena Football

Great Lakes Arena Football (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)

Very minimal significant coverage from reliable sources; majority of sources are from a suspected fan site. Could not find recent coverage in a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's only one link to a Facebook page, the others are to a local newspaper while the others are to a very reliable site, which is in use for most minor league articles. This league is equivalent to the National League (division) in England (without the history). There's absolutely no reason to delete this article. Ccui123 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ccui123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Oppose I don't see any reason for deletion. This is a pro league, and the article is well sited. StanleyKey (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see here is I don't see any other source besides OurSportsCentral, Muskegon Sports, and local team sources. I'm expecting more than just those sources here. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's clearly a minor league and Our Sports Central is as good of a source you can get for leagues below the Major level. BabyBOY789 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there's Muskegon Sports for West Michigan Ironmen coverage, but what about coverage for the other teams? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The league is not notable at all and there is no news articles on it except for small town news. Blake675 (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with West Michigan Ironmen since the league is inextricably tied to that team and what reliable sources are available for it are in the context of that team. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

Static Line (magazine) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Sockman

Southport Sockman (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 probably WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME. Mdann52 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bash-n-the-Code

Bash-n-the-Code (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) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights. Moving to a new title can be discussed separately on the merged Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of early-modern British women playwrights

List of early-modern British women playwrights (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 duplicate list of Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, just sorted alphabetically. Either this functionally should be merged into that article, or just use a category like Category:Women writers (early modern), which already sorts alphabetically. Having to maintain two identical lists is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeadPoint

LeadPoint (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 the notability guideline for companies. PROD removed back in 2009 by article creator. Sources are non-independent (e.g. press releases) or trivial (e.g. The Telegraph piece briefly mentions the company appears in a top-50 list). There's a lot in the FT Adviser but these seem to be thinly rehashed press releases (example), not independent analysis. – Teratix ₵ 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh (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, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Sources are either routine converses or dependent on the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Nicholson

Michael J. Nicholson (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, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"First member of [underrepresented minority group] to do a not-inherently notable thing in one specific local area" is not an instant notability freebie. The notability test for mayors hinges on having a significant volume of media coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about his political impact, and identity criteria such as age or ethnic background (or gender or sexual orientation, where those are applicable) don't exempt a mayor from having to pass that test all by themselves. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cyber Group Studios#Animated television series as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droners

AfDs for this article:
Droners (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022.

None of the other 6 language articles appears to have any citations that can be used to establish notability.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, so I am trying again to determine if this is notable and should be kept, or if it isn't and should be deleted or redirected. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Read (activist)

Alan Read (activist) (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)

Only 1 article links to this, the suburb where he is from. The sources are all primary and mostly not significant coverage. The obituary cited is by the organisation he was involved in so it's not independent. Article worked on by an editor with same surname. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable information. A similar article could be written about just about anyone. Athel cb (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stetina

AfDs for this article:
Troy Stetina (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 nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [24] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
    * This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
    * And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
    There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
    • Is this an article he wrote?
    • 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
    • The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
    Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.

    The articles below are relaible,

    Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.

    Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,

    According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina

    It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

    Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
    • Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
    • You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
    • Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
    Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
    • Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
    • Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
    • Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
    • “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
    • Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
      Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.

      Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say.

      The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is!

      To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.

      Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
    I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!
  • Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
  • The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge. ✗plicit 13:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Stuchlák

Karol Stuchlák (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)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions about his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. There are two interlanguage Wikipedia in Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) and Slovak, the latter of which might help copy over English article, but neither said wiki's provide significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the suggested Redirect. Only database sources can be found, no in-depth coverage, does not fulfill WP:SPORTSCRIT.
@Clariniie: if there is a viable WP:ATD such as a blank-and-redirect like here, you can be WP:BOLD and do it directly without going through AfD, especially if you think it's uncontroversial. Broc (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 11:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Serbian presidential election

2027 Serbian presidential election (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)

It is still WP:TOOEARLY to create this article. There are no sources discussing the topic and the election can be held earlier than in 2027. For example, the article for the previous 2022 presidential election was created 1 year before the elections, considering that we had sources discussing the topic and potential presidential candidates. This is not the case for the 2027 election. Vacant0 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Sailaja Telugu Songs

S. P. Sailaja Telugu Songs (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:NOTDIRECTORY. According to S. P. Sailaja article, she sang over 10,000 songs. A full (and unreferenced!) list of them is completely unwarranted. Broc (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

S. P. Sailaja Tamil Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. P. Sailaja Kannada Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. P. Sailaja Malayalam Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. P. Sailaja Hindi Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Broc (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wiślica#History. Despite all the time and effort, no additional sources were found. If and when sources are found that establish independent notability beyond what was presented here, any editor is welcome to restore this page as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica

Sack of Wiślica (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)

As

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed todelete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :
In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.
Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne
Source
Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.
Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Duplicate AFD‎. This is a duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya (2nd nomination). Feel free to move any comments to the other AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya

AfDs for this article:
Isha Malviya (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 article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense.
Also note for closers, you have !voted from IP with only three other edits on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster

November 2021 English Channel disaster (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 article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Nota beneBlocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) (Nota beneBlocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Nota beneBlocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Nota beneBlocked sockpuppet)[reply]
That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 04:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Olthoff

Braden Olthoff (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 Joeykai (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of recently located sources, perhaps from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Butler (football manager)

Craig Butler (football manager) (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 does not meet any notability standards. The most notable thing about him is that he is the father of two players, but this is Wikipedia, not WikiTree. That he managed a high school team may get him some mentions in newspaper articles, but where those don't relate to his more famous sons, they are "local newspapers", which also don't make him notable. The rest is best handled on his sons' pages. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butler is clearly a significant figure in Jamaican football, as shown by the amount of coverage he receives in Jamaican media... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in New York. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWTJ-LP

WWTJ-LP (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)

Insufficient-notability low-power religious FM. Redirect conversion reverted by IP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Andrews (actor)

AfDs for this article:
Brian Andrews (actor) (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)

Working actor, reasonable career, but I couldn't find sources available to confirm he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs. Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not. and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween. other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jon Haylett. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cry of the Justice Bird

Cry of the Justice Bird (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:NBOOK. Can't find any reviews, not even in PW/Kirkus/Booklist afaict. Please ping me if coverage can be found. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I found only a one sentence mention in an EBSCO resource stating the book won an award - "Jon Haylett's Royal Society of Literature prizewinner Cry of the Justice Bird." Still no sigcov. Maybe add that it won the award to Haylett's page? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, a prize from the Royal Society is the kind of thing that makes me think it should be notable. ...But actually I think that might be a mistake, and it was one of his short stories that won a prize, per this interview? Per the Royal Society site, his short story won in 2005 but I can't find evidence of other wins. In which case, still no hints of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgians

AfDs for this article:
List of Belgians (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 list is much too broad and conflicts with WP:SALAT. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belgium is a densely populated country of 11.7 million people. Category:Belgian people cannot be counted by PetScan, and a large share of the articles are not about Belgians, but there are likely tens of thousands articles about Belgians in Category:Belgian people. Category:Belgian scientists alone contains 1038 articles, more than enough to support a standalone list of Belgian scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Belgian people by century contains 4569 results. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the scope of such list is too broad. But as WP:ATD, this list could be transformed in a list of lists following the example of Lists of Americans, by splitting into sub-lists. However, I tend towards Delete as I don't see the value in having lists of people for which we already have categories with thousands of entries, unless said lists have more stringent criteria than the categories themselves and are heavily curated. Otherwise we end up having patchwork lists of dubious worth. I am looking forward to reading the opinions of fellow editors. Broc (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is way too vague, as it includes people who were citizens of Belgium for at least some part of their lives (which could include a small portion of their lives), people who weren't Belgium at the time but were born where Belgium is now (which I don't think should qualify as "Belgian"), and even fictional characters whose citizenship isn't even know. There are way too many leaniant parameters for what qualifies as "Belgian". I think @Broc's solution to turn the article into a list of lists could work, but I think deletion or making stricter qualifications for what "Belgian" means would be better suited. Mjks28 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list on its own is far too broad and unwieldy. Possible alternative is a list of lists in a more specific sense. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore representatives at international male beauty pageants

List of Singapore representatives at international male beauty pageants (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants, this list of pageant contestants lacks notability under WP:LISTN. The only source in the article currently is to Miss World, which is primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_23&oldid=1232588416"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.