Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

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!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[1]] and [[2]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything here that isn't already included into International Seabed Authority. I only find one source that is specifically about him, which is the NY Times article about the criticism of his leadership. Everything else is about the organization, naming him as the director. Being the director is not itself notable, as Bearcat states above, as is evident from the paucity of information about him. I should note that the UN and WEF sources are not independent; bios in such sites are almost always provided by the subject of the bio. And the Q&A article is also not independent as that is him speaking about himself. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Q&A article also includes prose at the beginning which was written by the journalist, not the subject. Uhooep (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Seabed Authority. I agree with Lamona's categorization of the sources; he isn't the focus of them, but appears in them as a source of quotes for an article on the organization or on the topic of deep-sea mining more generally. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing is sufficient. Oppose a redirect; if he isn't "notable" enough for a stand-alone article we don't need a mini-biography in the organization's article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. No rationale provided for deletion by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Choice

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

BBC Three was BBC Choice until 2003 Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coddlebean, I don't understand your deletion rationale. Can you explain why we should delete the BBC Choice page? Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tv channel bbc three's original name was bbc choice Coddlebean (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Why is that a reason to delete this page? Toughpigs (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The main problem I have with the article is that all of the sources given are to the BBC. If some decent independent secondary sources can be added then OK. Athel cb (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a cursory view of Google Scholar shows this appears to have received non-BBC coverage. If a detailed review proves that insufficient and no other independent RS'es are identified, then merge to BBC three. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: The nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion; for all that I understand, it might actually be a request to merge, or even an edit request. This should be closed as keep, with the opportunity to reopen it with a proper deletion rationale. Toughpigs (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#1 applies here as there isn't any rationale for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barrett (rock climber)

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

notable only because of a single event, WP:BLP1E should apply, wp is not a news site Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting criminal notability, and the pro rock climbing career is rather non-notable. I don't see the required level of notability to have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had tagged this page as a WP:BLP1E while patrolling and planned to circle back to it. This subject has zero notability as a climber (i.e. nothing in mainstream climbing media per WP:NCLIMBER), and outside of this case, has no notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is a case of WP:BLP1E, subject lacks previous coverage before the 1E. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny with the history preserved if someone wants to enact a merger. Star Mississippi 00:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per previous votes. He doesn't seem to be notable on his own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southport Sockman

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mildly amusing anecdote, but that doesn't make it notable. Athel cb (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's very notable locally and across merseyside and lancashire 31.94.28.139 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on this one, though the article really does need to pull it's socks up. This was not a single incident, but rather a spree of incidents over several years - a lot of socks. Furthermore, although the court case is reported to have been in 1998 there does appear to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the UK-based "sockmen", including: coverage from Canada from 1996 (Medicine Hat News), a 2009 article ([4]), a film produced in 2015/16 (Liverpool Echo, IMDb, Mirror), a 2017 book ([5]), a Connecticut radio show in 2020 ([6]), and a retrospective article in 2021 (Daily Record). Coverage could be better, but does appear to be much more than "breaking news". ResonantDis_tortion 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the vandalism where an IP had added a third name to the perpetrators, and also added some of the above refs as citations within the article. ResonantDis_tortion 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an 'In popular culture' section to the article with talks about the film and book adaptations, with can help enforce its WP:N. Mjks28 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Events described in article are notable, as they have inspired multiple media products (per @ResonantDistortion's argument above, such as a film). Article could, however, benefit from some rewording/restructuring, and add a section that could cover its media adaptations. —Mjks28 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oh wow, I remember this happening, some of my friends were 'victims'. Anyway, I've added some extra detail with contemporaneous references. Orange sticker (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Discuss renaming of the article on its talk page. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyne

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

The article has no clear topic. It appears like it may be trying to be a dictionary entry. Sourcing is nearly non-existent. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling expansion of a dictionary definition. Athel cb (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like it underwent an edit to get more inline with other surname entries. I think the page should be renamed to Kyne (surname). I would also support a Redirect to Coyne (surname) if that article were fleshed out to include this variant.

Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing and sources support a short surname/DAB page. As we now have. Deletion is not cleanup. Guliolopez (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kyne (surname) does sound like a good solution Either way I'm sure there are other well known Kyne articles to be written, such as Raymond Kyne, Irish industrial designer, artist, stamp designer and past-president of the Society of Designers in Ireland, now called the Institute of Designers in Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since an editor unilaterally chose a topic for the article and replaced all the content present at the time of nomination, none of my original nomination stands. The replacement article is a fine stub. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concern expressed by nom was valid when the article was in the state that it was at the time, though it appears an adequate WP:BEFORE check may not have been done. It's a valid name SIA now and nom has agreed to keep so I'd recommend a speedy close. I'd also recommend moving Kyne to Kyne (surname) and turning Kyne into a DAB, given the other two topics listed in the hatnote, over which the surname does not seem to have prominence. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Athel cb: AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Droners

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyber Group Studios#Animated televiision series (is possible but rather) keep as it was broadcast internationally on major networks and existing coverage online allows to verify it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Edited to change from R to K; -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: This Variety article says: "“Droners” proved a hit for French broadcaster TF1, leading it and Germany’s WDR to quickly greenlight Season 2, Mathieu noted. The show has also gone to Disney for a second window in France as well as to JEI TV in South Korea." It's likely that there's coverage in French media, if anyone can find it. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, found and added some (you need to search hard because a lot of primary sources come first; and I didn't search that hard but given the broadcast and sources found, I'd rather keep this; thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find in French sources [7], it's trivial coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am inviting participants who don't wish to search for more to read the first Afd (:D) and check new sources on the page...thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAP implementation

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

No real sources, reads like a manual, mostly copied from manuals? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a kind of essay or perhaps class notes or a course outline. Even with adequate sourcing, this fails WP:GNG for a standalone page under WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOTESSAY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article lacks sourcing, and cleaning it up would amount to blanking the page. Deletion is appropriate per WP: STARTOVER. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Epesso

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The best sources that I could find in Philippine media were Dugout, a passing mention, and a Wordpress blog, which is neither reliable nor significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough reliable sources EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiew Araya

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

The player debuted when he was incredibly young but then disappeared. I'm struggling to even find routine coverage. No evidence that this complies with WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and the current database sources are unacceptable on their own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Costa Rica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – With only database source listed, article obviously fails GNG. What a waste of talent! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrit Sejko

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

Whilst I note that Sejko was extraordinarily young when he made his professional debut, I can't seem to find any coverage of him in Albanian media. Furthermore, I can't find any information about him after his debut; he seems to have disappeared. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as things stand. No objection to this being restored should WP:SIGCOV occur later in his career as he is still only 18. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Article obviously fails GNG with only database source listed. Corresponding article on Albanian Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub, no major edits since its last revision in 2022. I also don't see any evidence he'll become notable or gain recognization in a few years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable. Athel cb (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Probably not a hoax, but no clear evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

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

Couldn't find a single reliable source mentioning a battle called the "Battle of Devarkonda." This makes it clear that the article is fabricated. It was created and modified by socks who were disrupting articles related to Indian military conflicts. The article lacks notability, and no sources cover this conflict in detail or refer to it as the "Battle of Devarkonda." Created by socks/continuous disruptors for self pleasure. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment- The repeated mentioning of "Muslim" in the lead itself is enough to identify the the target of the creator (ofcourse, the user is blocked).Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is a not a reason for deletion because it can be fixed through editing. In this case, however, notability does not appear to be established. C F A 💬 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is a hoax. It is briefly mentioned in some pages online, like this blog/article. Regardless, it certainly doesn't meet WP:NMIL with this little coverage. C F A 💬 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda We have seen numerous unreliable sources that discuss rewritten and inaccurate history, often contradicting well-established sources. I do not consider those blogs and write-ups to be credible, especially since such biased South Asian blogs are widely available online. The site linked above itself contains praise and many biased writings. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Source by Dr. M.A. Haque, lecturer in history, Regional college of Education, Bhubaneswar, Orissa on page 33 talks about the battle at Devarakonda. Page needs to be fixed with background where Bahamanis sieged Devarakonda. More reliable sources will be helpful. 2 other sources, I was not able to verify. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for notability. The first source is a paper book that I cannot access online. The second ref (Subrahmanyam 1957) links back to the article. The third source, a book from 1980, looks legitimate but only mentions the battle on one page (which you can access by entering "Devarakonda" into the search function provided). So we have enough accessible sources to show that the battle took place and a few basics about who fought and who won. I say draftify if even one person volunteers to make improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seem to be insufficient sources that discuss this battle. Whizkin (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Andrews (actor)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One quite notable role and some mildly notable ones have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) PS- Added various sources and think the subject also meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....:D[reply]

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

Keep, roles add up to enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEEE-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Sammi give the subject WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:

this book review[8]
this obit in the Independent[9]
this obituary in the Telegraph [10]
minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [11]
this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[12]
this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[13]

One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [14][15][16] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([17][18]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [19] and a book review here [20] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please scroll to the bottom of the article and the Authority control databases. There are international results there, meaning his works are published in those countries. The Library of Congress returns 20 resources on his works. . — Maile (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. There are many ref. i added. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 17:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clap note

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

I couldn't establish for sure that this is notable. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for many years, and there don't seem to be the amount of sources available to show notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources, seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references to this term that I can find online other than this article, no matches in Google Books or archive.org. Assuming it existed in the first place, it doesn't seem to have entered public usage. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to University of Alabama at Birmingham. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added secondary sources.

Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

It has met WP: N criteria.
You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

Shortcut

WP:SIGCOV

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but in light of the newly added sources, I'd appreciate some editors reviewing them before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources as of this diff that should swing the discussion. Most of the secondary sources are (still) database entires, and those that aren't lack reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players

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

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer, I see your remarks as a Keep vote, no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I specifically didn't !vote keep because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a delete. The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable group of individuals covered by a group in reliable sources. The article needs improved, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sack of Wiślica

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

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :

In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.

Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne

Source

Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.

Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

This page seems to be almost exclusively cited to a random Facebook fanpage "ThailandBeautyQueen" and is probably the WP:OR of the account who inserted the links in a series of November 2023 edits, subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benebimo. There is no way to improve this without starting over with real sources, it should be WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main issue is whether this is a notable grouping that has been covered by independent reliable sources. Notwithstanding that, the entire page is just a table of plain information, which should be trivially verifiable. I don't see why this would fall into WP:TNT territory. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking into this article (which has been a magnet for sockpuppet and blocked accounts), it was originally at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Thailand before it was renamed so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hopefully, another relisting will bring out editors who have opinions about the value (or lack of it) for articles on national representatives at beauty pageants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same rationale as held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants. No evidence this set of contestants has been discussed as a whole in RIS, and the article is little more than a directory. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra. No evidence that these subjects are discussed in RS as a group per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cade

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

Not notable. A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage. Searches for sources produce more of the same. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think this one is an obvious keep. The subject person has taken part in numerous films, series, and theatre plays. For films, he had notable roles in Antiviral and Stardust, both of which were mentioned in multiple sources (see Toronto Sun[21] and IndieWire[22] for Antiviral; GQ[23] and The Hollywood Reporter[24] for Stardust). For TV, he was credited in a main role in Gangland Undercover (see Comingsoon.net [25]) and The Big Cigar (see The Economic Times[26] and The Hollywood Reporter[27]), as well as a recurring role in Blue Mountain State (see Screen Rant[28] and TheWrap[29]). For plays, the article already mentioned that he co-led the Dora Award-winning A Quiet Place, and I also found that he had a lead role in Free as Injuns, supported by reviews from The Globe and Mail[30] and National Post[31] which praised the subject person's performance. Obviously fulfills WP:NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that any of these roles are significant, and while “significant” might be subjective, the coverage you’ve linked goes as far as literally mentioning his name, or maybe saying “…and James Cade [is] also on board.” The best I can see there is “There's definitely sizzle between Cade and Prudat as Even and Be”. None of this suggests notability to me. Even the roles he is credited as starring are not backed up by sources which say anything more than merely confirming his name. — HTGS (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: You misunderstood my point. The reason I cited those sources was not because they have SIGCOV about the subject person, but rather to demonstrate that he had lead roles in those projects. The fact that he was credited in main role for Gangland Undercover, recurring role for Blue Mountain State and The Big Cigar, and was described as the male lead in Free as Injuns in multiple reviews, likely outweighs your subjective assessment of whether these roles are significant. This undoubtedly shows the subject person has fulfilled the NACTOR#1 of having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and stage performances, while GNG is not considered by me, nor the other Wikipedians commented in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using words like undoubtedly, but nowhere does policy say that a leading role is enough to confer notability. My read is that significant roles get at least moderate coverage. These roles aren’t getting even mild coverage. I am prepared to be outvoted though, that’s fine—as I say, “significant” is subjective—but it seems far from “obvious” or “beyond doubt” that any of these roles confer notability. — HTGS (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: AFD discussion is not a vote. But yea, multiple Wikipedians have found those roles to be significant, and I used words like undoubtedly because I did not expect there would be disagreement on this. Some of the roles are literally credited as main roles. I do not believe it is a subjective assessment, nor should significant roles be determined on subjective assessment. I beg to differ with your interpretation, no guideline defines significant roles as requiring a certain amount of coverage. As long as the lead roles are backed by reliable sources, they are lead roles. A lead role in a film will not be reduced to a supporting role simply because there are insufficient sources covering the film. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, should WP:NACTOR then say “lead roles” instead of “significant roles”? Because I assumed there was some distinction between the two, and that there was a reason the guideline says significant. If we are merely looking for leading or “main” roles, then we may as well say so.

I’m also curious whether you actually agree with NACTOR here, and you’re not just following rules as written? This reading gives notability to persons who do not gain any significant coverage whatsoever. — HTGS (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I think the word "significant" is used in a broader sense to include roles beyond just main roles, such as supporting/recurring roles, as well as guest roles that receive extensive coverage or attention. The reason I specifically mentioned "main role" is because main roles are usually officially credited, and this subject person has received such credits in multiple projects, addressing your doubts about whether the roles I listed were subjective assessments. And yes, as I stated, I believe the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and I agree that he has sufficient significant/notable roles that warrant an independent article, so it should be a keep. Arguments on whether there are sources providing SIGCOV on the subject person are more likely referring to WP:GNG, which I did not consider in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you think NACTOR has been met; I’m asking if you think it should be regarded as a useful rule here. The guideline itself says “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards … meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”

The roles at hand are still subjective assessments, because not every main role is significant. Unless you think we should regard all main roles as significant roles. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I do not understand the point you are making in your first sentence. As you have already mentioned, I have quoted NACTOR multiple times, so if I do not think it is a "useful rule", then why I would cite it???

And no, please take a more careful look at the guidelines. It writes significant roles in multiple notable [projects], not "roles in multiple notable projects that are significant". A main role is of course a significant part of a project. A film could not be made without a lead cast! So main roles are of course significant roles. Even if your interpretation was applied, the films and series we have listed all have their own independent articles, which means they are notable. So main roles in these notable projects should be considered significant, simple! With all due respect, I really do not see a point of ambiguity or reasonable basis for disagreement in this case, because you seem to have either misinterpreted or tried to override WP:SNG with GNG, and be the only one to identify the roles with subjective assessments here. At least two main roles and one recurring role on TV, two lead roles in stage plays, two supporting roles in films. Obvious keep, that is all I have to say. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Let's Get Physical, Gangland Undercover, Cascade and Blue Mountain State. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Those editors arguing for Delete cast doubt on whether this institution is a "significant accredited college". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Henriksen

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Non-notable individual, run-of-the-mill educational administrator. No claim of notability (except perhaps for the Platinum Jubilee Medal, but even that was given to 420 000 individuals worldwide). WP:PROMO, reads like a WP:RESUME. Potentially violation of WP:COI as the editor is a single topic editor, and claims to own the copyright of a picture of the subject. Melmann 11:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. This article needs substantial trimming and rewriting to change it from a resume to a Wikipedia page. However the subject is the president of Northlands College, which appears to satisfy C6 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of edits towards WP:NOTRESUME; hope this is helpful. Qflib (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib Is Northlands College a “major academic institution”? I can't even find it among any of the major university rankings (but, it's possible I'm just bad at searching). Melmann 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically we look for schools to offer masters degrees or higher as one indication of whether it qualifies (this excludes community colleges). This school qualifies under that criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this entity the result of three community colleges joining together? In any case, what would be a (non-major) academic institution? Like a vocational school? Melmann 09:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vocational school does not offer graduate degrees (masters or higher). I would not consider a college that only offers associate and/or bachelor’s degrees and is not otherwise notable to be “major.”

There are a few R1 universities that started off as teacher’s colleges and only offered bachelor’s degrees originally. So IMO the history of how the college came to be isn’t directly relevant as to whether it is currently “major” for our purposes here. Qflib (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How an institution is established isn’t relevant. Public Institutions in Canada are established by law… passed by the government. There are numerous institutions that started as a college for example Yukon University that do exceptionally valuable work. 2001:56A:6FE1:B447:911:8C81:F497:9BCE (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Northlands is major enough to qualify for #C6, and we should go through GNG instead. All our sources are currently PR fluff, stories about Northlands, or stories about the one event of him becoming head of Northlands. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about GNG. But since we don't have a specific definition of what "major" means in WP:NPROF, I do tend to think we should assume that a school fits the criterion if they offer one or more graduate degrees, or if they are a historically significant institution (like Oberlin or Byrn Mawr). Of course, I respect your opinion to the contrary. Qflib (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it appears to be a conglomeration of three community colleges. I think we've generally held that community colleges don't count for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Northlands College is a public institution service 50 percent of the landmass of Saskatchewan. As a public institution it offers a comprehensive array of programs from adult education to masters degrees with an indigenous student population of over 90 percent. I think the confusion here is the understanding of higher education in the USA vs Canada. 2001:56A:6FF0:41DD:55A9:9553:A7EA:A447 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David, this particular institution offers bachelors degrees and at least one master’s degree, unless I’m reading this wrong. If I’m wrong, apologies. Qflib (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep the individual is the coauthor of the Nunavut Arctic College/Memorial University Transformational Agreement which has been noted by numerous media outlets and leaders

https://higheredstrategy.com/better-northern-higher-education-strategy/ 24.72.14.113 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per David, I dont see this passing the bar of WP:NPROF#6 so we will have to evaluate per GNG. Another way to think of this is that if this person is notable then there should be no issue to pass GNG. --hroest 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Northlands' academic programs[32], it is clear that this is essentially a combination of a community college and a trade school. Not what WP:PROF#C6 had in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The profile of the person satisfies, WP:PROF#C6 section B, "if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college. 207.195.51.169 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a public institution in Canada. Serving 50 percent of the landmass of the province and it is an institution serving largely indigenous people. 24.72.14.113 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint George S.C. players

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

No evidence this list of self-selected players meets the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero notability, a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the top football team in Ethiopia, and is well sourced. I fail to see why WP:LISTN doesn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I tend to agree with SportingFlyer. I'm not sure how this can be see has having "zero notability" if it is the best football team in Ethiopia. It is also universally discussed "as a group or set" by nature, working it into the threshold of WP:NLIST. I think this falls under WP:BIAS to a large degree, as well. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club was founded in 1935 and such a list would purport to include players from the club's entire existence. There is a huge WP:V barrier that I don't see this list overcoming. How to verify which players played for Saint George SC, how many matches (i.e. who surpassed the 50-match mark, 100, 250 etc.) and when? To me that would seem equally impossible as maintaining and updating the list. Finally, deleting it removes nothing of value, as a category does the job much better. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments to keep are fairly weak: are there independent sources for the list entries? Maybe we can come to a consensus by remedying this apparent lack of independent coverage (or by determining that there is not significant independent coverage).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lists of people, including players of sports teams, must demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Upon review, the article lacks sufficient citations from such sources to establish the notability of individual players. While Saint George S.C. is a notable club, the roster of its players as presented does not meet the threshold for inclusion as per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability. Therefore, based on the current state of the article and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, deletion is warranted unless substantial, reliable sources are provided to establish the significance of the players listed. This action ensures the integrity and reliability of information presented on Wikipedia, maintaining standards of verifiability and notability across all articles.Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true - lists do not need to demonstrate the notability of individual items. Furthermore there's plenty of sources in the article such as [33] which clearly shows by listing all of the Ugandans which have played for the club that the information is available, probably in Amharic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yakov-kobi: Please stop posting AI-generated comments in AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drafitification? Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute most. Giant Snowman 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career Aren't we looking for WP:SIGCOV? The two sources you mention are routine coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not be much to the article but satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Does it? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Robby.is.on, I didn't know I have to answer to you WP:BADGER? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course you don't. But it's not particularly constructive to state that WP:GNG are met when so far nobody has indicated WP:SIGCOV exists. In my experience, articles often get deleted when the assertion "Satisfies WP:GNG" is not backed up. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. @Robby.is.on MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – The two articles linked by GiantSnowman here are routine coverage. Of the five sources in the article three are database entries, two are from AFC Wimbledon and Woking, clubs the player has played for. So far, we don't have anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing as no consensus--without additional good arguments I think that this is where this will end up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source is a database, the second is an interview, the third is all of two sentences of routine transactional coverage, and the final two sources are more stats databases. The sources provided in this discussion are likewise just a few sentences about a couple of matches, and can hardly be called in depth or significant. Bottom line, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG in the article, and I don't see anything better elsewhere. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ntokozo Vidima

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite a bit of coverage, but not really enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Southern Ukraine campaign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Robotyne

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]