User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Revolver Ocelot

Revolver Ocelot (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)

Most of the sources at receptuon were just listicles and rankings. I have trouble of finding something substantial reliable source that talks about him significantly, not just about passing mentions and a short commentary. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Lots of sections that are unsourced, much of the only sourced section (Reception) reads less as reception so much as sourced speculation about character details from the individual games bundled together. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Merge. I, unfortunately, cannot find much meaningful character analysis done in reliable sources. It's tough, but that's what you end up with sometimes.
  A merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series § Revolver Ocelot should be sufficient rather than deletion, though. That's in line with the outcome of similar AfDs like AFD:Venom Snake, AFD:Meryl Silverburgh, and AFD:Otacon. There's still content worth porting over to the list (such as replacing the first paragraph of the list with the lead of the article since it's better written). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Revolver Ocelot per nom, no standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per MJL. There isn't enough to reach WP:SIGCOV, but some of the mentions can be WP:PRESERVEd at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There is some discussion about him at least, this article on The Ringer discusses him in depth, and while I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, the author has written for other publications. This book has a page discussing him in the context of Japan's fascination with cowboys. Fanbyte gives some analysis of the character also. I do think there are sources, possibly on the cowboy angle as a whole looking at Google Scholar, but I don't have time to do a deep dive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Kung Fu Man's sources. SnowFire (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the sources presented by Kung Fu Man would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep In my opinion the reception alone shows notability, and now with Kung Fu Man's new sources (which discuss the character in depth) there is clear notability shown in the subject. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not the strongest, but I feel that the examples Kung Fu Man provided help get it over the finish line. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:25, 11 January 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 due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Microbicide Trials Network

Microbicide Trials Network (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)

One source in article seems more about the vaginal gel than the organisation. [1] is arguably not significant coverage. [2] covers two sentences worth and is not significant coverage either. I cannot find any other sources mentioning the organisation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note Also nominating:

International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because these two similarly turn up no independent scholar or news search results, and are both stubs.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I notice you didn't search on Google Scholar or in paywalled academic journals. There is a decent amount of coverage of the organization and its activities, i.e. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9], which added together would be enough for GNG but probably not NORG.

  I didn't thoroughly research the others, but I would say some sort of merge to an article about HIV/AIDS research would be superior to deletion, since there is encyclopedic content that can be written about them. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I searched on google scholar, DDG and DDG news. I did not do a paywalled journal search. My concern is NORG, as I understand it, these organisations publish plenty of research, and the sources you provide could be used for vaginal microbicide for example. As far as a parent article to merge content, two options are Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination and/or Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. As can be seen at this image, the web of organisations is big, and these articles I nominated were just the ones in the cluster I couldn't find sources reporting about the organisation itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  NORG coverage includes coverage of an organization's activities, such as organizing trials of vaginal microbicide (see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_substantial_coverage). The reason it may not count isn't because the content is irrelevant but it may not be in depth enough for NORG. While it's not necessarily trivial to find a merge target, WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered before an AfD if there is encyclopedic content worth preserving. I would support merging any of these to a parent/sponsoring organization or to HIV/AIDS research (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I meant, significant coverage for a topic unrelated to the org (the study objectives and the topic) and not enough coverage for the org and their specific research practices. On its own, I didn't think the three stubs have enough salvageable content to warrant a merge request since their sources are all either primary or not significant coverage, which is why I chose to nominate. But considering the sources you found, maybe the content is worth keeping through a merge when backed up by secondary sources, even if it's minor on its own. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Studies run by the org are not "unrelated to the org" any more than reviews of a restaurant's food are unrelated to the notability of the restaurant. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  To meet NORG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT), we need at least two independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. To my understanding, the only difference between NORG and GNG is the condition that the sources are also secondary sources. Studies run by the org are not independent or secondary sources, so they cannot meet ORGCRIT. In any case, NORG generally overrides GNG as NORG is a subject specific notability guideline, although in both cases these are just guidelines and not policies.

  Some restaurant reviews might meet NORG and GNG criteria based on their contents and sources; I am not sure how far to entertain the hypothetical other to say that "it depends". I had a brief glance at the sources you linked, as far as I could tell none of them were both independent and significant coverage. If you still believe the articles warrant keeping, I would kindly appreciate if you could list the top three (or perhaps just one) sources which meet this criteria.

  The source Bluerasberry found is good, although it may not be secondary I am inclined to ignore that if we can find another source of similar quality. I would much rather keep these articles and expand them, and I concur with Bluerasberry that it is unfortunate these kind of orgs avoid media coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Unsure I started this article years ago. The organization closed in 2021 so there are unlikely to be new sources about the org. The org itself wrote a summary of its history; my guess is that it could have spent and consumed about US$100 million from its existence in 2005-2021, doing about 40 medical research trials in many countries, including 12,000 participants. The best reliable source I found about the org is from small town radio, which is nice and counts, but I always regret that these grand multinational, multigovernmental community research projects avoid all media attention. There are lots of sources about the organization's individual clinical trials and their outcomes. It is common practice on Wikipedia that when an individual artist gets attention for their art but not as a person that we keep the biography. When we have stubby articles like this about organizations which could only be built out by describing their programs but not the org itself, we typically delete. Medical papers do not make for good Wikipedia narratives. This org merged into the HIV Prevention Trials Network, which is much bigger. I could support a deletion or redirect/merge of the wiki content here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 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 due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ralgex

Ralgex (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)

Medical articles should have medically reliable citations - see wikipedia:Why MEDRS? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I think that there is just enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I've added some sources to the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's a borderline case. SailingInABathTub has got us sources for a list of ingredients, and I couldn't find sources for anything more than that, either; with most saying a lot less. This puts us in borderline not-a-directory territory, as this is, literally given the sources that I found which were product catalogues (ISBN 9780747559283 being an A–Z catalogue of drugs that can be bought in stores, for example), product catalogue stuff more than it is encyclopaedia stuff. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:42, 2 January 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Love by Chance (Indian TV series)

Love by Chance (Indian TV series) (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 DonaldD23 talk to me 01:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails policy per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 4 January 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 a redirect would be a viable ATD, there are several places where he's mentioned, there's no clear redirect target. If one is subsequently created, happy to provide the history thereunder. Star Mississippi 15:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Abdulieh Janneh

Abdulieh Janneh (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 sufficiently meet the NSPORT and GNG criteria InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigyes06 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, thank you for nominating the article as it gives us a chance to improve it. Please see some new revelations at Talk:Abdulieh Janneh#This him? where we are trying to determine if Pa H. Jammeh the Olympian is the same person as Pa H. Jammeh, new solicitor general in Gambia. The approximate age would line up, and if the connection can be established there is a wealth of WP:IRS sources covering Pa H. Jammeh's contemporary career that could be used in the article. What we do know, is that the subject definitely meets WP:NATH twice over, as a two-time top-8 finisher at the Commonwealth Games. --Habst (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Does NATH cover relay team members? I don't think that the Commonwealth Games qualify as the highest level of international competition since it's only confined to the former British colonies which decided to join. If either, or both, fail, NATH fails for inclusion, and I personally have some doubts about the connection. Consider maybe reaching out to his office directly. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader, thank you for your questions. Yes, WP:NATH does cover relay team members for point (1) -- if they were not meant to be included, they would have been specifically excluded as in points (7) and (8) "non-relay". Because the Commonwealth Games includes Kenya, Ethiopia, and Jamaica, it is actually usually the highest-level international athletics competition outside of the World Championships/Olympics, because those three countries are usually ranked #2, #3, and #4 behind only the United States in track and field. --Habst (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  If it’s not higher than the world championships than it doesn’t meet NATH on its own. Invadinglnvader (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader, thank you for the challenge because it's important to understand the inclusion policies. WP:NATH actually does not cover World Championships qualifiers or Olympians at all one way or the other -- the history of this policy is complicated, but you'll notice that none of the numbered points at NATH currently make any reference to Olympians or WC athletes (reference is made to disciplines being in the Olympics/WC, but not Olympic athletes or Olympic performances/placings). So any argument about Olympians or World Championship qualifiers on the merits of their Olympic participation or status of a competition compared to WC is outside the scope of NATH entirely.

  Understanding this, the subject actually does meet NATH twice over for placing in the Commonwealth finals, in fact this specific competition is mentioned in the first numbered point of NATH. Because of this, I would love to work with you to find sources and improve the article, instead of mass PROD-ing these Olympic 200m athletes and seeing that the vast majority are being kept so far in the subsequent discussions. (However, I am thankful that your proposed deletions have led to all these article improvements.) What do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  even then NATH states that SIGCOV is likely to exist. Do you have any other SIGCOV besides databases? Invadinglnvader (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. Yes, there is substantial SIGCOV of Pa H. Jammeh the solicitor general of Gambia. As mentioned above, the current challenge is to determine if he is the same person as the subject of the article, and that is why I think that the nomination should be withdrawn as keep until this question is resolved, or until a proper search of Gambian media from the 1990s can be performed. --Habst (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't this warrant draftifcation instead of extancy on the Wikipedia mainspace? Per WP:BLP, we must get the article right. If he is still living, we can't include unconfirmed facts, and until proven by the most reliable of secondary sources, connections between the solicitor general and the figure in question are original research. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  @InvadingInvader, thank you for replying. There are no unconfirmed facts in the article, everything in the article is confirmed and cited by reliable sources. The association in question has always been on the talk page, not the actual article which is permitted. --Habst (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't we draftily the article though? Further refinement is necessary, and without this connection, the subject (based on the apparent lack of SIGCOV to justify inclusion as of writing) does not meet GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. We have no evidence of SIGCOV meeting GNG, which is required. I've also removed the SPS (Lulu.com book).

JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding and for scrutinizing the sources. I replaced the Lulu.com book with two other sources saying the same thing. What do you think about the purported association at Talk:Abdulieh Janneh#This him?? I think that in the interest of improving the article, we need to fully investigate all of these threads before a deletion decision is made. --Habst (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That nickname pattern seems relatively common in the Gambia. I found several other Pa Harrys.12 There needs to be considerably more linkage before we can reconsider this a NPOL situation, and right now the subject definitely fails GNG with the sources we have. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, thank you for your research, that is very helpful. The reason why the association on the talk page is possible, is because the year of birth would line up (via stated education), and both the first and last name are matches. Yes, there are some people with the Pa Harry given name, but most of them don't have the other details aligning. I think this demonstrates that more research is needed into the subject -- knowing certain details could also exclude the connection, which would be just as helpful. --Habst (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No secondary source content, not in the article, not in the limited sources. This athlete will remain listed in multiple articles, 1992 Summer Olympics, 1993 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres, etc, where his listing is a mere mention, and if more than a mere mention is possible, add more information in relation to the athlete and the event. There is nothing to support a general independent biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 14 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Interfaculty Committee Agraria

Interfaculty Committee Agraria (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. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. All 3 sources are the company's website. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Biology. CptViraj (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• leaning Keep on this one, but the sourcing on the page is not sufficient. The ICA is an actual network of universities (not a company) and thus in a similar vein to, for instance, the European University Association. There are plenty of mentions of it, but coverage of it in secondary sources that are independent of it can be trickier. If a university mentions it[10] for instance, then we have to contend with those mentions being non-independent and perhaps trivial. But there is coverage in plenty of secondary sources. For instance in European Guide for Students of Agriculture, Education in Agriculture and Food Science, Impact and Resilience "... the largest European educational network for life sciences education..." and many more. Multiple secondary sources are more than met. Many of the mentions (but not all) are trivial, but this appears to cross the line for WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 4 January 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 Discount points. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Service release premium

Service release premium (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)

Whole article tagged with 3 issues over 10 years ago Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to discount points. Also recommend merging yield spread premium to the discount points article. My reasoning is according to the following quote: A central feature of the U.S. mortgage market is that, in addition to providing the borrower with the principal on the loan, the intermediary also pays a “rebate” to the borrower to cover closing costs and other expenses. This upfront payment, which goes by many different names (yield spread premium or YSP, service release premium, (negative) discount points), plays a central role in all mortgage transactions but is often not explicitly disclosed to the borrower who just sees the rebate in the form of changed closing costs. (from [11]) Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with discount points: While this is definitely a term used in the industry, it doesn't stand up as article-worthy. This would be better discussed in the merge destination. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 4 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Snowball

Operation Snowball (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 organization. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I found this, this, and this, which I think are at least marginally notable enough that there's a case for the article to continue. Having said that, if it does continue to live on, it needs to be massively cleaned up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist was never transcluded to the log: see closure request. This should be considered the first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There are some ghits, like above, but they are mere mentions or interviews of the leaders or participants of the organisations activity, which is not sufficiently independent. No independent person can be found to be making qualities commentary on this organisation. It’s close, but definitely fails. All draftification should someone find better sources. Also note that the current version looks too much like the archive of the organisation website. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 14 January 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 Jharkhand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation

Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation (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. No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jharkhand. CptViraj (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dhirendra Kumar. Suitskvarts (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There was reporting in 2021 regarding an affair involving this company: "Hemant grants prosecution sanction in ’18 blanket scam" (Times of India). AllyD (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete / Redirect to Jharkhand: I don't see enough to sustain an article about this as a company as per WP:NCORP (and the list of shop addresses, etc. is inappropriate content), but it does appear worthy of consideration in the context of the local economy, so I added a brief summary into Jharkhand#Economy. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that this should not be an independent article, but I'd like to see some more discussion on whether either of the proposed redirect targets are preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jharkhand: Not enough notability for a standalone article, but enough for a redirect. Since this is a gov't agency, redirect to that government. UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 8 January 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 CNN Philippines original programming. We cannot Redirect this article to List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines as this page is a Redirect itself. Please check to see whether target pages are articles or redirects before proposing them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Real Talk (Philippine talk show)

Real Talk (Philippine talk 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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 01:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Probably a merge with CNN Philippines (or any related article) instead of a delete? I remember seeing this show, but it was short-lived. So a mention in any CNN-PH article would do.--- Tito Pao (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions and to see if there is additional support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

More inclined towards the merge option (I prefer that it be redirected to List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines) and maybe integrate relevant content in the "List of programs" article. -Ian Lopez @ 16:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Now there are two different Merge targets, hoping to hear from a few more people to settle this difference of opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need a few more opinions to settle the different point of view on Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with CNN Philippines per suggestion by Tito Pao UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Per the below (which is a redirect), I amend my !vote destination to be for List of CNN Philippines original programming. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNN Philippines: Barely found anything about the show that lasted only 2 years aside from the sources in the article. A redirect to the mentioned list is the way to go when it comes to non-notable programs. ASTIG😎🙃 09:00, 10 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Krithika Nelson

Krithika Nelson (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)

Factors don't appear to have changed since the October AfD. Just moved back out of draft by the creator. If this closes as delete, suggest SALT since there's some likely UPE/socking going on as well. Star Mississippi 13:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, India, and Tamil Nadu. Star Mississippi 13:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I did move the draft to the article space. Since it had been a while since I started creating this article, and was yet to receive notice from any of the mods, I thought something like this would get their attention - it did.

That said, I disagree with factors not appearing to have changed. I have added a lot more references citing the subject in an independent tone. Granted I don't have as much experience with Wikipedia editing as anyone with a mod status does, but this isn't fair, to be honest.

I see nothing wrong from my end except for moving the article of my own volition. If you still think this space should be deleted or salted, please go ahead. Aishu.m (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You submitted it for review on December 9, which was four days ago. While AfC isn't a requirement, if you choose to use it it's helpful to know that is not an unreasonable time to wait. Until recently, the backlog was several months. We're all volunteers here. What is your rush in having the article in mainspace? Star Mississippi 01:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Going by my most recent submission, yes, it isn't an unreasonable time to wait. But this article has been consistently declined or nominated for deletion since much earlier than December 9. Each time a mod suggests edits, I diligently update it to the best of my abilities only to have it rejected yet again. I understand we're all volunteers here, and I'm deeply grateful for your work. But surely you can understand the frustration of trying to do something right only for it to be shut down.

I admit moving this article to the mainspace when review was pending wasn't the best course of action. It was done purely to get a mod's attention after months of trying and trying and trying only to get my very first article wrong each time. I'm just hoping to create a page for someone who I think is significantly notable in the Chennai/TN region, but it's honestly discouraging to have it consistently put up for deletion. I hope you can atleast consider moving it back to the drafts until the article is found satisfying enough to be moved to the mainspace again. Aishu.m (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you don't quite understand the process. When it comes up for deletion, an admin may close it but it is more than one person's decision. The community believes Nelson isn't yet notable. While some AfC reviewers are admins, myself included, others are regular editors. While you did make updates on 9 December, that hasn't always been the case. Consensus on October 27 was to draftify and on October 29 without making a single change, you submitted it for AfC. That is not diligent updating. I am not inclined to move it back to draft space right now without community consensus because we'll just end up back here a fourth time. You'd be best served looking at source quality (not interviews, promotional stuff) and improve it with those, not quantity of sources. You're editing in good faith, but it's possible that Nelson is not notable. Star Mississippi 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait until we reach a consensus and see what can be done post that. Thank you for taking the time to explain things. Aishu.m (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: Same as last time in October, nothing has changed since then. The award might be notable, but we'd need much more sourcing than what's given now. I can't find anything extra that wasn't there in October. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi. As mentioned in the previous comment, I have added references that can support the statements better. That's the significant change done here. I believe that's a decent number of sources. Most, if not all, mods have stated there weren't enough independent sources. Now that there are (or atleast I think there are), I'm confused - where is it going wrong? I try to get things right, but never seem to be able to. Aishu.m (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Longer, extensive sources are needed, not name drops or "come watch this video" posts. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe there are a decent number of interviews and review articles where her work has been discussed independently, compared to the name drops and "come watch this video" posts. Additionally, there are several other Wiki pages that link to this one, which I think is further testament to the notability of the subject.

  I have seen other articles with far little information and even less resources that have still gone through. Seeing those, I'd like to think I've put in the work required to have this stay on.

  I'm sure you would know better than a rookie like me, but I think having this article deleted would be an extreme move. I hope you can atleast consider draftifying it instead. Aishu.m (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: I have looked into this quite carefully and believe it should be kept on the basis of general notability. At least three of the sources (including those in Tamil) provide quite extensive independent coverage. I do not believe they should be excluded just because they are partly based on interviews. Several of the other sources, though brief, include pertinent information in line with GNG. Furthermore, the article could no doubt be extended on the basis of more careful searching in Tamil and other sources, including newspaper and journal accounts not readily accessible on the internet.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Ipigott think she meets WP:GNG.Lankancats (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redraftify: The move to main article space was out of process due to the article being draftified by AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Ipigott and the award is notable including the Best Lyricist award for her work in Ponniyin Selvan 1 for the song Sol on JFW Movie Awards 2023. Tame Rhino (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  — Tame Rhino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 02:37, 11 January 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ngozi Iwere

Ngozi Iwere (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:NBLP Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Draft so that the flowery language and incorrect titles can be fixed. Appears to be notable as an AIDS activist in the country, enough mentions in Gnews alone. But wow does this need a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b Hi there, I have, as a matter of fact, cleaned-up the article. You should check it out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Medicine, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: as well-sourced and by notability shown above बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG. PS: I have reworked the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Trying to weigh arguments on Keeping vs. Draftifying this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep influential in forming the Society for Women and AIDS in Africa, Founder and executive director of the community life project, a Nigerian NGO, an authoritative voice in news articles e.g., [12], [13], [14]. Author and subject of articles in scholarly journals. Recipient of the MacArthur Foundation Award. This is enough to satisfy WP:BIO, but needs further clean up and expansion.Polyamorph (talk) 20:49, 4 January 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 most luminous stars. The anchor can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

G0.238-0.071

G0.238-0.071 (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Only one paper appears to mention it explicitly, however, that one only mentioned it three times in the exact same section. Because of this, it fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It is still probably the most luminous known star that is not an erupting LBV. Maybe redirect it to List of most luminous stars? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 13:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: being the most luminous non-variable star known should be enough to make this more than a line in a list. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment a luminosity estimate in a broader list from a single source (without even an error estimate) isn't enough to establish notability. Per the above and the Sagan standard, I think we should require confirmation from an independent study before allowing the extraordinary claim that this is the "most luminous non-variable star known". Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to the luminous star list seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of most luminous stars and create an anchor where the star is mentioned; the current amount of coverage is not enough to establish notability and justify an article, although this might change in the future if more studies on the star are released. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 10 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Handle-o-Meter

Handle-o-Meter (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and product-specifc notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete this could be merged to Johnson & Johnson, but my merge proposal attracted only one comment and that was against the proposal, as it wasn't clear if this material is notable enough for inclusion in that article. I could find no evidence it was notable enough for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD's.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NPRODUCT. A couple of journal articles were brought up in a previous nom but I'm unconvinced they demonstrate sigcov. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage can be found in the following sources:

- Hansen Jr., Orin C.; Marker, Leon; Ninnemann, Karl W.; Sweeting, Orville J. (1963). "Relationship between dynamic modulus of thin films and stiffness, as determined by the Handle-O-Meter". Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 7 (3): 817–832. doi:10.1002/app.1963.070070303.

- D H Morton; A Marks (1965). "The measurement of flexural rigidity of thin polymeric films". Journal of Scientific Instruments. 42 (8): 591. doi:10.1088/0950-7671/42/8/327.

- Gordon L. Robertson (2016). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, Third Edition. CRC Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781439862421.

- The Complete Technology Book On Plastic Films, Hdpe And Thermoset Plastics. NIIR Project Consultancy Services. 2006. pp. 148–150. ISBN 9788178330112.

- Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. Vol. 48. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. 1965. pp. 58–61.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider UtherSRG's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Sources located by SailingInABathTub (not UtherSRG as the relist note says) are enough to convince me that this is a notable technical device within the paper industry. Following the references from one of the cited papers, I was able to locate a digitized copy of the 1955 trade publication article that announced the product: [15]. It's not an independent source, so it doesn't contribute to notability, but it looks like a useful source to flesh out the article. I'm often astonished what obscure sources can be found on the internet these days! Jfire (talk) 06:26, 10 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Gulf Islands Film and Television School

Gulf Islands Film and Television School (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)

Unable to find N:ORG level coverage of this for profit film school. Star Mississippi 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Education, Schools, and Canada. Star Mississippi 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: Although this article could use some work, it appears that it has enough sources (included and elsewhere) to confirm notability. Rublamb (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see evaluation of the added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:26, 6 January 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. There is clear consensus here that a standalone page is not viable. A merger has been proposed, but doesn't have consensus, and two targets have been suggested, one of which doesn't exist at the moment. So I'm going to delete this for now, in the understanding that if a list article is created, or consensus is reached to expand a different page with this information, we can redirect this title: also, that I will gladly provide a draftspace copy for anyone who wants to develop this toward a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Murad Abu Murad

Murad Abu Murad (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 is no WP:SIGCOV of this individual in multiple sources that is required under the GNG guideline. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep I've added more news sources, there's significant coverage stating his involvement in the October attacks, as well as numerous articles noting his death. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You added this Jerusalem Post article that supposedly gives him WP:SIGCOV. All this article says about Abu Murad is "IDF personnel eliminated Murad Abu Murad, the head of Hamas's Air Force, in Gaza City on Friday, Hebrew media reported. Murad largely took part in directing terrorists in the murderous attack last Saturday. Murad's death came as the IDF attacked Hamas's operational headquarters in the region." That's it. Nothing more. How's that SIGCOV?VR _talk 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

to me that sounds somewhat notable, at least worth merging into something or having as a list. Irtapil (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources are about the event, and contain very little information beyond this, simply stating they were involved in the terrorist attack/org. The event itself obviously happened, there are sources for the event, but again they contain very little information and I don't think they amount to WP:SIGCOV.

Ping me if someone makes a strong case with sources for converting this into an event article. I strongly considered this, it would provide a good redirect target for the current title. The exact name for the event should be determined by reliable sources. My issue here is finding WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the event) directly and indepth, just because it happened doesn't make it notable. No objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  07:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I think we should start a list article, there are a lot of cases like this, where there's a notable amount of news coverage, but not enough information to be a whole page (see below). Start with a big list that includes everything, then split off if it gets too big. But, journalists already have their own page and I'm not sure how to frame it for that?

Irtapil (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as a BIO1E. Also little known about him because lacking SIGCOV. Not mentioned anywhere else so should not be redirected. Not ruling out a merge, yet it should be noted that organically nobody deemed Abu Murad important enough to be included in a more comprehensive article and there are many of these. So don't force it. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades#Leaders killed by Israel or other causes as an WP:ATD. Readers might be searching for the name, and there is at least potentially some information we could give them (meaning there is enough sources for expanding the target with content about this subject, even if no one has done so yet). Seems like a typical situation where we'd have a redirect. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Abu Murad is not mentioned at the target so not a valid option. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Who cares, easily fixed. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure but that fix isn't a redirect. 15:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I changed my vote from "redirect" to "merge and redirect." Easy. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better! gidonb (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

the target? Irtapil (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's right there! Including the section at target! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for a Merge or if a straight Delete is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete of course. A stub with no potential to expansion, no notability. Nothing to merge there. Hamas has thousands of killed members and we have a NOTAMEMORIAL to not list them all. Only the ones who were notable. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov: Not all, but this guy got news coverage in at least 3 countries, Israel, India, and Germany.

Actually, that combination makes thus article weird, most of this topic have too many USA and UK sources, but this page has none? Possibly there is a another article about him with a different spelling of his name?

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @Oleg Yunakov: I'm tentatively skeptical of "Hamas has thousands of killed members". As far as I can tell, that figure includes ALL males over 15 years old who've been killed in Gaza? when the number of militants was previously estimated as just 40,000 out of the half million men in Gaza, and the war has kilted thousands of adult female civilians.

The only way I see that adding up is if nearly all of the missing are dead combatants that Hamas are refusing to report, which is fairly plausible (under reporting combatant casualties is very common, and would be a lot easier than the over reporting of civilians they keep being accused of), but that's pure speculation. So currently I'm filing "thousands of dead Hamas militants" as "one side said", the same category as the number of Israeli tanks Al-Qassam claim to have destroyed?

But there is a slight bias towards adult males in the deaths so it could be one or two thousand, just not quite as many thousand as the IDF claim.

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I hear you however an individual who receives only temporary news coverage doesn't meet the BIO1E guidelines. For instance, not every victim of the October 7 mass murder committed by Hamas has a dedicated article, despite multiple news coverages for each. I have done research when I wrote over 100 articles on this topic in ruwiki (including all major October 7 events such as all but one here, articles on Hamas members, settlements, victims and etc.). To warrant an article, sustained interest over a longer period and potential analytics, along with adherence to notability criteria is necessary.

I'm not referring to all males over 15 and 40K, but specifically focusing on the 8K killed Hamas members. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov

I know exactly what your are referring to. I was saying I don't believe the "one side says" unless there's some other evidence (you seem to have my even read to the end of the headline, "says IDF spokesman"?) There is no independent source verifying tower 8,000 dead people exist, unless you count almost every dead man and dead teenage boy in Gaza. So,

• The IDF just made up the number
• The IDF are counting dead civilians as militants (seems most likely, the USA has often counted every adult male as a combatants, "military aged males", people write whole PhD theses on that)
• The Hamas government in Gaza are hiding thousands of the deaths of combatants (quite common, Ukraine and Russia are both hiding the numbers)

18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you and I do not think that anyone would disagree that those numbers can only be used with an attribution. But I am missing the point regarding how such number is related to the notability of Murad Abu Murad? IMHO it's unrelated. Regarding the potential list of little stubs it has to comply with PEOPLELIST. If the guy has another name you are welcome to find it and prove notability. Otherwise we can say that anyone can have other name with potential notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oleg Yunakov And as I was saying below, I thin best solution is to make a list page complying all these little stubs. But, "Abu" is very common in militant pseudonyms, e.g. the spokesmen, so this guy possibly has another name…

18:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Second choice, Keep or merge with an existing page, but I would prefer…
• Start a list page - There will probably be a lot of these little articles?

To begin with I would include all factions and Hezbollah (not just Hamas). We can split it if it gets too long. Some entries can refer to a {{main}} page, but most probably won't. But what do we call it? And should we include notabe civilians?

📝 "List of Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

• But that is too long?

📝 "Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 war"

• Which war is probably implied

📝 "Alleged militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

• Some (e.g. Ali Bazi) seem to be officially unconfirmed and recently dead people probably warrant similar caution to WP:BLP? Possibly we could just make it comprehensive?

📝 "List of notable deaths in the 2023-2024 war"

• That would include journalists and any other civilians whose deaths got substantial news coverage?
• But the 1,139 deaths on the Israeli side at the beginning probably belong on a different list, the level of detail about them could easily fill an entire wiki page?

📝 "Notable non-Israeli casualties in the 2023-2024 war"

• But I have never seen "notable" in an article title before, is there a better way to say that?
• The 3 hostages who got shot seem like they belong in that list, but "kilted by Israel" is obviously going to cause problems. Possibly it could just be 8 October onwards? But the IDF soldiers seem like they belong elsewhere?

Irtapil (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of either having a list of casualties for the war in general, or split lists for Israeli/Palestinian sides, although the list of 'Notable' people may not be long enough for split articles. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Probably worth making a list page. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 12 January 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

ASCAME

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

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

No refs to establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The title should not have been abbreviated. There are lots of references when you search for the full name, Association of the Mediterranean Chambers of Commerce and Industry. https://www.google.com/search?q=Association+of+the+Mediterranean+Chambers+of+Commerce+and+Industry&sca_esv=593723253&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AM9HkKl3d8_i74h0oywl9RJruIPtR2m8Mg:1703580669214&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw04nF3KyDAxUDg4kEHZLPCYgQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1477&bih=849&dpr=1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 00:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: the heavy involvement of COI/UPE editors leaves me leaning towards WP:TNT. But let's tag this as a soft-delete, allowing immediate recreation by any non-COI editor armed with suitable sources. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 14 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Walter B. Hargreaves

Walter B. Hargreaves (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and music bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and Scotland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete It’s hard to see how this article has survived for so long after being already flagged for notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previously-declined prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep at least tentatively. A Google book search brings up multiple refs but unfortunately they are all snippets. They do demonstrate sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Whether or not they are in depth I can’t say but given the number I think we should err on the side of caution. Mccapra (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mccapra: If they are all snippets, then they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV and, therefore, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  In the context of Google books, "snippets" refers to the limited amount of material that Google displays for many copyrighted works, not to the significance of the material in total, which can only be definitely assessed with access to the complete work. Jfire (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Here is a full-page newspaper profile. The Modern Brass Band has coverage of him and says that a "detailed biography" is available in Sounding Brass, October 1976, pp. 83–85. Jfire (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Better link for Modern Brass Band: [16]. In total this book has at least three pages of content focusing on his life and accomplishments as a conductor, and his entry in the book's index cites 20 pages. This is unambiguously significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - does not meet notability guidelines Coldupnorth (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the relable sources coverage identified by Jfire in this discussion such as The Manchester Evening News piece, and reliable book sources such as Modern Brass Band and the Sounding Brass source so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 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. With no new comments after 2 relistings, I'm going to close this as No conensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

David's Sling (novel)

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only reference (besides being in a list on Libertarian Futurist Society website saying it was nominated for an award) is the subject book itself. I'd say merge into the author article, but there is really no material to merge. Just self-description sourced to the book itself and unsourced praise written by the wiki-editor. North8000 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep: According to the isfdb, there's three reviews, which satisfies WP:NBOOK. I wasn't able to locate online copies of the sources, though I did find a table of contents for one of them, and it had this book. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 2 January 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. czar 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Salman Farhan Sudi

Salman Farhan Sudi (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)

Being an official in a ministry of an unrecognised state doesn’t make you notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Somalia. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is under improvement and soon it will be added valuable contents. So I suggest to not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawali Nur (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We add the categories in this page. And soon we will another confirmed data with sources. Hawali Nur (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Minor quibble: Puntland is a constituent state of Somalia, it is not a breakaway entity like Somaliland. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment adding two links to Facebook and another to the homepage of a university isn’t demonstrating notability. Where is the in depth independent coverage of this individual? Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete solidly fails GNG. A Google search returns more results on the similarly named Saudi king than it does results for this subject, which are all Facebook and other social media posts anyway. RetroCosmos ^{t • c} 17:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have had another look and I am unable to change my mind. With respect, Facebook is a non-starter, and a press release is something that might build upon existing notability but certainly not enough to establish notability. Hawaii Nur, I appreciate your efforts on this article. RetroCosmos ^talk 09:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Improvements were made to the article today that would be worth a look. It would help with coming to a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. The sources added are all government press releases listing all similar appointments. They verify that the subject holds the position mentioned in the article. They mention the subject but there is no in depth coverage of him specifically. At AfD routine announcements of an appointment are not regarded as evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete no presumed notability available under WP:NPOL as even ministerial directors-general/first secretaries are not recognised there (although to extend Curbon7's point, Puntland is a federal state, so it's ministers would be covered by NPOL). No independent sourcing to indicate satisfies WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:35, 15 January 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mason & Julez

Mason & Julez (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest attempted notability claim here is of the "has X number of listeners on a streaming platform" variety, which is no part of Wikipedia's notability criteria at all, and the article says absolutely nothing else which would meet any NMUSIC bulletpoint -- and of the ten footnotes, four are just their music circularly verifying its own presence on Apple Music, Spotify or YouTube, which is not support for notability, while five are PR blogs that aren't reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. And while there's one site ("Celeb Magazine") that might be marginally acceptable, one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this.
In addition, it also warrants mention that when I saw this a few minutes ago, it was threaded through with a couple of dozen direct offsite links to Spotify for every individual song in their discography, right in open body text in defiance of WP:ELNO rules, thus bolstering the suspicion that the intent here was promotional. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I am the original writer of the article; since my last edit, a user added advertorialized content including the Spotify links. I have reverted the article to its original form; I will work on adding references. SaltieChips (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You'll still need to find better sourcing than blogs and YouTube and Spotify. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood. SaltieChips (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping to get more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would helpful to get a sense of whether recent additions have changed this article for the better.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I vote Keep; I don't have much to say other than deleting articles on the borderline of notability seems pointless to me. I'd cite the Copyright Alliance and CelebMagazine sources. Doesn't seem like anyone else is interested in stating an opinion, so close as no consensus? SaltieChips (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete BLPs, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  05:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Without independent, reliable sources, this doesn't meet WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, nor any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 18:55, 17 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Independent Left (Ireland)

Independent Left (Ireland) (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 don't think this group (I'm not sure to what extent it can be called a party) has sufficient notability to merit a separate page, satisfying WP:ORG. Its coverage on the page at present accounts that its councillor had left PBP, and the various details of his election, as well as that of another candidate, in more details than we would normally include in narrative. Google search results for "Independent Left" "john lyons" or "Independent Left" "ireland" don't indicate WP:SIGCOV.

To the extent that it's necessary to note anything at all, there could be a small note in the Artane–Whitehall section of the 2019 Dublin City Council election page, something similar to the note on the Waterford People's Party on the 1985 Waterford Corporation election page.

Deleting the page doesn't mean deleting the party's record on Module:Political party/I, it would retain a separate colouring from Independent politician (Ireland). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Environment, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the party is a) contesting elections, including the most recent Dáil and local elections; and b) has had someone elected to office. That would appear to make them at least as significant as other parties that, while registered, don't appear to have contested any recent elections, or have never contested elections. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ORGCRIT. I was unable to find significant coverage of this political party in independent, secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:20, 2 January 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) 16:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - fails org, basically a one man band, an independent local politician with an unregistered micro party. Spleodrach (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - the party regularly appears in news sources, was a founding organisation of Irish Left with Ukraine, and has been joined by Laura Broxson, founder of the National Animal Rights Association. JimHolden (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you post some examples of their regular news coverage? CeltBrowne (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Dublin People; Dublin Live; Irish Mirror; Irish Times; Dublin Inquirer. JimHolden (talk) 16:26, 15 January 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. Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sultan Ul Arfeen Siddiqui

Sultan Ul Arfeen Siddiqui (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 GNG and NBIO. See [17] prior deletion log.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Geneology page	1. "Family & Lineage of Shaykh ul Aalam". Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Conference speaker announcement, nothing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Faizan Islam Institute London organized a conference on the arrival of Allama Dr. Pir Sultan Al-Arifin Siddiqui in Britain". Daily Pakistan. 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Arrival of Sajjad Nasheen Niryan Sharif Pir Sultan Al-Arifin Siddiqui in Britain". jang.com.pk. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "pir sultan ul arifeen visited zia ul ummah". World News TV "United Kingdom" (in Urdu). 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit and speaking engagement. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "The three-day Urs will begin today at Dargah Nirian Sharif Tarakhil". dailyausaf.com. Retrieved 2023-12-16.
Annoucement about a visit and speaking engagement. Fails WP:IS WP:RS no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ "Pir Sultan-ul-Arfeen Siddiqui (DBA) Visited SEC". Retrieved 2023-12-16.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment it's unclear what makes him notable? I don't see any proper source that confirms his biography,

  حقائق کا پتہ لگانے والا (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep he is notable. He is current custodian of Nerian Sharif and Chancellor of MIU, MIMC. Notable References: [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeti7 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep notable: sources are reliable like Jung news, Daily Pakistan, word news and aslo from Niwa e Waqt, which i have added recently in the article which was above provided by Teeti but not used as a reference in the article. Skt34 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While technically eligible for soft-deletion, the fact this was created only a couple of weeks ago, plus the sockpuppetry here, means unlikely a soft-deletion would 'stick'. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete based on the source table above, I can't find anything further about this person that would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 2 January 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 Wiki#Visual editing. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Document mode

Document mode (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 very popular term. I think it should redirect to WYSIWIG. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Tough one. The main place I've heard it was indeed in the context of Wikis way back when, so we could target Wiki § Characteristics (and some might even be merged there) And, if it's mentioned in such depth on c2/WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki, it's almost certainly a concept important to wikis. I've never heard it formally used to describe WYSIWIG editing but it's not too far of a stretch. It's also term in Internet Explorer, but that's probably not a great redirect. I'm not sure if dab is appropriate here. —siroχo 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to Electronic document. As far as I can discover, this term is a neologism invented by the creators of the first wikis, but it failed to catch on. Therefore, it should be deleted as lacking lasting notability. But from what I understand the concept isn't fully congruent with WYSIWIG. One could have a wiki that isn't WYSIWIG and still is constructed so the "current version of the page is a coherent and self-contained whole, reflecting only the result of the last update". ― novov (t c) 05:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to the wiki characteristics is fine. The article is about wiki software; to me the term means seeing how a document would look printed out from a word processor, back from the days when the program looked one way and you had to "print preview" to see the actual fonts being used and how the layout was. That is now the standard way of using word processors (WYSIWYG) but the discussion here is around wiki software. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wiki#Visual_editing: I believe this is the specific subsection of Characteristics that relates to this feature. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 13 January 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mark Whitten

Mark Whitten (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)

Mostly sourced to IMDB. Any sources are routine (Deadline) and only 50 google results. Andre🚐 15:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete – As nom stated, there are multiple hits on Google; however, it appears to be a different person, especially seeing the name mentioned as one of the voice cast of Spider Man 2. Also barely fails WP:NACTOR. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 06:13, 20 December 2023 (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, Daniel (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Not finding independent coverage from RS. Fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 9 January 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.