Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:

__TOC__

__TOC__

<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->

<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WNBA Finals broadcasters}}<!--Relisted-->

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Awards broadcasters}}<!--Relisted-->

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Awards broadcasters}}<!--Relisted-->

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pro Bowl broadcasters}}<!--Relisted-->

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pro Bowl broadcasters}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 08:56, 9 May 2024

< May 08 May 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pro Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. One of the source are causal mentions. Some are YouTube, if not dead links. Many others are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zee Bangla#Drama series. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtami (TV series)

Ashtami (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)

Non-notable series per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV. Can't find significant coverage in English or Bengali (অষ্টমী). Editors hunting for coverage will need to filter out results for the notable festivals with this name: I used "Zee Bangla" as a search term (জি বাংলা). There was a short burst of WP:NEWSORGINDIA publicity for the upcoming show, but it's been running for a month now and seems to have received very little coverage. Article appears to have been copied piecemeal from the UPE article moved to draft. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The nominator is now arguing to Keep this article so I'm assuming the nomination is withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idolatrada

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

An article about a film that doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Past Doctor Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures. Star Mississippi 18:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel)

Empire of Death (Doctor Who 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)

Fails WP:NBOOK. One of the sources is WP:USERGEN and the other no longer exists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okhotnykovo Solar Park

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

This solar power plant is so tiny that it is not notable and not worth anyone wasting time cleaning up the article Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems this plant was quite large at the time it was opened so I've looked for somewhere to merge the article to. But it seems it was never quite big enough or important enough to belong on any pages about solar globally or domestically. Looking for further sources, I found information about the consequences of the Russian occupation of Crimea on Australian-built solar parks like this. But none of the references I found named this plant and I feel forced to conclude that it is not really notable. Mgp28 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Henry Mason Smith

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

Not notable. Delete or Redirect to Edwin Smith (rower). TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Acampa

Mario Acampa (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)

all mentions in the sources included in the article are in passing. Nothing available in the article or online about his life to help establishing notability (WP:SIGCOV) FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor commentator without established notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Citrus Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redbox Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Idaho Potato Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS, with one now redirecting you to the front page and another being a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poinsettia Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS, with one being a dead and another a blog post. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, with no rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
    Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Mexico Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with the only one being a dead source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Military Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being blog posts per WP:PRIMARY. (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Miller

AfDs for this article:
Richard A. Miller (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)

Half the sources don't even make references to Miller, however there is this sources which does count towards WP:GNG (and was the only one I was able to find). GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oklahoma. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Miller's biggest claim to notability is his appointment to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, a five member appointed state agency that is required to approve pardons. I'm not convinced either way whether that position meets WP:NPOL, but in a state that is doing more executions than most others the people in charge of determining whether to pardon those to be executed have some degree of notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 2 May 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) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don’t see the argument here or why it’s open for debate. He clearly does not meet WP:Notable guidelines and does not merit his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what is behind this article creator's interest in the parole board, but I see nothing here beyond regular government agency work. I haven't dug into it but I would not be surprised if other related articles also fail GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Las Vegas Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aloha Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one being a Tripod page. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Aleem

Yussuf Aleem (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)

Recently prodded, deprodded with a note about "inherited notability" that I did not understand. I did not find the kind of citation record that suggests WP:NPROF, nor reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and GNG looks unlikely here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally prodded the article as the references did not, in my eyes, meet the level to establish sufficient notability, nor did anything I could find about him. I have already enquired on their talk page, but will ping @Tanhasahu here in case they want to explain why they believe the article to be notable. Golem08 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. The de-PRODding editor's edit summary was "Somehow notability is inherited", which is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which stands for the exact opposite proposition: that notability is not inherited. TJRC (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability, under WP:PROF or any of the other notability guidelines. As others have noted, notability is never "inherited" and the de-prodder clearly applied completely incorrect reasoning here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet NPROF, low citation count on GScholar, no countervailing factors to suggest this is a keep. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: concur with deletion; article lacks evidence of notability per WP:PROF and other guidelines, and citations are insufficient. Waqar💬 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop-Tarts Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one dead and another a forum. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pinstripe Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peach Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music City Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Birmingham Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator removed the language I found problematic. See diff]. Probably should have been stricken rather that vanished, but I appreciate the response nevertheless. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it as part of the feedback because I thought it won't wash well with future nominators. I had added it in, being fed up of the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT votes I was getting from this selection of voters (they come to keep vote on my AfD, even for the most trivial reasons). SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenia Sergeevna Didula

Evgenia Sergeevna Didula (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)

Russian pop, ethno-pop and folk singer. The person does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emaan Singh Mann

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject was never elected in any of the contested elections, and fails WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Being the father of a notable person doesn't confer notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and hasn't been elected as an MP or MLA which fails WP:NPOL. As previously stated regarding Indian politicians, these articles are premature and should be deleted. Referencing past instances like Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi underscores the need for deletion. Grabup (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of schools in Jordan. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reyada School

Scientific Reyada 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)

WP:UNSOURCED school with no good place to redirect. A quick search reveals nothing more. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 2 May 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) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of schools in Jordan where it is listed. It is not notable for a page, which is the bottom line. If there were a more focussed redirect target I would suggest that but it gets no mention on the Amman page, for instance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I think this discussion has gone on long enough. It's not a straight Keep to acknowledge that problems still exist with this article despite the work that has gone on with it over the past three weeks. Also, the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination which also prevents me from a Keep closure. But I don't think a 3rd relisting would help at all here, this article just needs more work done on it. Editors with a COI, please suggest changes on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lifechanyuan International Family Society

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

This article has had zero independent sources cited since it was created six years ago. I am unable to find any significant discussion of the organization in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Canada. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete' There's a little bit out there on this company, but not from reliable sources. I can't see the full text of the Martin Boewe doctoral thesis; if it has RS citations perhaps that could save this article, but where those citations would come from is anyone's guess. As it is, it's possibly eligible for CSD G11 (blatant promotion).
    keep per WP:HEY rewriting of article based on sources from @Cunard Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lifechanyuan started from Zimbabwe when Xuefeng lived there and the 1st Second Home was built in Yunnan China so most of the theory(Lifechanyuan values) and introduction articles are in Chinese, with only a small portion of its theory and introductory articles translated into English, that's why the sources of the information is difficult to find.
    Dr. Martin Boewe and his wife visited the 4th branch of the Second Home in 2012, during which they had an interview with founder Xuefeng, here are the links for his interview （1-3）:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4JWQwCzw&t=151s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQ3e1_wjgs&t=17s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaiwPsSqt3k&t=360s
    It is imperative to accurately convey what Lifechanyuan truly represents to the world, without misunderstanding or misleading the public. As a member of Lifechanyuan for nearly 18 years, I aim to share the truth based on the past 16 years of practice of the Second Home, spanning from China to Canada. Tongxincao (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are Chinese language secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then you should offer them up here. A YouTube interview with the founder is not going to do it. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I think about this, the more I think there should be an article. But not this article. I found a single WP:RS article from the New York Times in 2014[14] but it's paywalled. Somewhere there's an interesting follow-up story to be told. Probably not one for Wikipedia until that story gets published but someone feel free to surprise me.
    The article creator @Snewman8771 is a SPA which did just three things: create the article, wikilink to an article on intentional communities, and then two years later try to create an article about East Turkistan Republican Party which was declined.[15].
    @Tongxincao your account was created on the same day in 2015 as @Snewman8771. He started editing in 2018 and then stopped, and you didn't start until 2023. [16][17]. Can you explain? Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in China from 2015 to 2022, during which I have very limited access to WIKIPEDIA, and our communities in Chins were always under monitor, so I was quite careful to get access to google and facebook etc. Besides I am not familiar with the rules and how do people add new items on Wikipedia, I think put a brief introduction for Lifechanyuan will not be a big problem for Snewman8771. So we didn't pay much attention on it as we are focused on the community establishment and safe existence in China at that time.
    In Nov 2022, I came to Canada and after settlement, we plan to develop the society with our founder and members together. We are looking for some volunteers to come and help our work in Canada，so the introduction of society here in WIKIPEDIA is important and must be true and clear. Tongxincao (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of Wikipedia is not to introduce societies and organizations to the rest of the world, it is to document things that are already written about in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, some of the previous content in the article was highly promotional in tone, which makes it seem like you are trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to recruit new members. ... discospinster talk 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply @User:Tongxincao. You should read the conflct of interest rules as you have a close relationship with this organization.
    Can you clarify whether you were involved in the edits by @Snewman8771? How did it come that both accounts were registered on the same day? Oblivy (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain about the detailed requirements of Wikipedia, and how reliable second sources are defined, but information displayed on it should be based on facts, avoiding conveying misinformation. I believe that is a fundamental rule. There are very few reliable second sources of Lifechanyuan in English, as it is a small group rooted in China, and only a few members are proficient in English. I can gather some sources in Chinese to verify the information, including English sources from Ecovillage network newsletters or reports from our sister communities, although some of their links may have expired or changed (though I have the PDF or JPG files). As you may know, the media in China is controlled by the government, and reports related to religion, belief, etc., including Lifechanyuan, are forbidden from being published. This has been ongoing for many years.
    Lifechanyuan is based on all articles written by founder Xuefeng since 2001, totaling over 3000 articles. Only a small part of it has been translated into English, and it is not well-known to the public.
    Here are some Chinese and English websites:
    www.lifelvzhou.org
    www.lifecosmos.org
    https://www.facebook.com/chanyuancelestials
    https://www.lifechanyuan.org
    https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org
    The source of the article I used to edit the introduction of the Second Home life mode is: (you might need to register to see) http://lifelvzhou.org/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2937&highlight=%C8%CB%C0%E0%D0%C2%C9%FA%BB%EE
    Snewman8771 joined Lifechanyuan and became a member in 2018, his member name is Kasi Celestial. In China, access to some internet platforms is restricted, making it difficult for us to reach out to Wikipedia or Facebook, besides the rule for editing WIKIPEDIA looks quite complicated for us. Snewman8771 offered to help edit, but as a new member, he was only familiar with a brief history and didn't fully understand our values and information. Due to communication challenges, we were unable to clarify, so we left it as it was. Now, I would like to revise and present it accurately to the public. Tongxincao (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not just ask them ?? https://www.facebook.com/lifechanyuaninternationalfamily/ or https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org 2405:9800:B910:819F:8F75:E8E3:1E34:197D (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Levin, Dan (2014-03-12). "Communism Is the Goal at a Commune, but Chinese Officials Are Not Impressed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Members of this idyllic utopian commune tucked away in the mountains of southwest China share an agrarian life that would probably have delighted Chairman Mao: Every day they volunteer six hours to work the fields, feed their jointly owned chickens and prepare enough food to fill every belly in the community. The bounty of their harvest is divided equally and apparently without strife, part of a philosophy that emphasizes selflessness and egalitarian living over money and materialism. “What we’re doing here is basically communism,” said Xue Feng, 57, the soft-spoken founder of Shengmin Chanyuan, or New Oasis for Life, whose 150 members include illiterate peasants and big-city corporate refugees. “People do what they can and get what they need.”"
      ・Sigley, Gary (2016). "The Mountain Changers: Lifestyle Migration in Southwest China". Asian Highlands Perspectives. 40: 240–241. ISSN 1835-7741. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
      The journal notes: "In Lincang Prefecture, a rural subtropical area in southwest Yunnan near the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, a group of 150 people from different walks of life came together to create the Shengming chanyuan 'New Oasis for Life Commune' (Levin 2014). This Buddhist inspired community sought to create a self-sustaining and spiritual alternative to what they regard as an alienating and materialistic society found in the sprawling cities of modern China. As is discussed further below, these people are drawing upon a long Chinese tradition of escape to the mountains for the purposes of solitude, meditation, and respite. What is interesting about the New Oasis instance is the choice of location. To have created such a community in Lincang before 1978, or even before 1949, would have been extremely difficult. Lincang is a border region that for most of its history has been inhabited by various non-Han minorities. It was a remote and often dangerous place for the unwary visitor, a place that James C Scott (2010) regards as part of a larger highland zone he calls "Zomia" that for much of history was beyond the immediate reach of centralized states. But times have changed and the once "remote" and "dangerous" places have now been made "accessible" and "tame." Unfortunately for the members of this community, the local authorities looked upon this religiously inspired endeavor with great skepticism and used various measures to make them disband."
      ・Introvigne, Massimo (2022-01-01). "Religión, "sectas" y control social en la China de Xi Jinping" [Religion, "sects" and social control in Xi Jinping's China]. Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos [International Journal of Asian Studies] (in Spanish). 1(1). University of Costa Rica. doi:10.15517/riea.v1i1.49606. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
      The article notes: "En la última parte del artículo, presento un estudio de caso del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). Se trata de un movimiento idiosincrásico tanto por su insistencia en ser a la vez comunista y religio como por sus experimentos sobre el amor libre. También es un buen ejemplo de los efectos de los cambios legislativos y administrativos de Xi, ya que pasó de lo rojo a lo gris y, finalmente, en 2021, a lo negro."
       From Google Translate: "In the last part of the article, I present a case study of the Life Zen Temple (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). It is an idiosyncratic movement both for its insistence on being both communist and religious and for its experiments in free love. It is also a good example of the effects of Xi's legislative and administrative changes, as he moved from red to gray and finally, in 2021, to black."
       The article notes on page 57: "El 28 de abril de 2021, a partir de la 1:00 de la madrugada, la Seguridad Pública y agentes de la unidad especializada en la lucha contra el xie jiao empezaron a hacer redadas en los dos asentamientos comunales del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), situados en zonas remotas del condado de Tongzi y del condado de Anlong, en la provincia de Guizhou. A las 6:30 de la mañana, ya habían tomado el control de los dos locales, donde vivían unos 100 devotos de 13 provincias diferentes. Fue una redada clásica contra una “secta”, aclamada por la policía como un éxito total (he reconstruido el incidente basándome en los comunicados de prensa de la Seguridad Pública de Guizhou)."
       From Google Translate: "On April 28, 2021, starting at 1:00 in the morning, Public Security and agents from the unit specialized in the fight against xie jiao began to raid the two communal settlements of the Zen Temple of the Life (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), located in remote areas of Tongzi County and Anlong County, Guizhou Province. At 6:30 in the morning, they had already taken control of the two premises, where about 100 devotees from 13 different provinces lived. It was a classic “cult” raid, hailed by the police as a complete success (I have reconstructed the incident based on press releases from Guizhou Public Security)."
      ・Wei, Jing 魏婧, ed. (2021-07-27). "自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由……"生命禅院"非法组织被依法取缔！" [Claiming to be a messenger of God and advocating freedom of sex... the illegal organization "Shengmin Chanyuan" was banned according to law!] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
      The article notes: "中国网7月27日讯 据中国反邪教网消息，自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由，裹挟成员聚居，“生命禅院”非法组织被依法取缔！"
       From Google Translate: "China Net reported on July 27 that according to the China Anti-Cult Network, the illegal organization "Lifechanyuan" was banned according to law because he claimed to be a messenger of God, advocated freedom of sex, and coerced members to live in gatherings!"
       The article notes: "从2002年起，张自繁借用佛教、基督教、伊斯兰教、道教等宗教理论，并歪曲现实社会提倡的种种价值观，再糅杂一些心灵鸡汤，编造出一套唬人的“生命禅院”理念。之后，他又以“雪峰”为笔名，将这些所谓的理念集结成册，先后印制了︽雪峰文集︾︽禅院文集︾︽新时代人类八百理念︾等书籍。后来，这些书籍也成为张自繁对信徒实施精神控制的重要工具。"
       From Google Translate: "Since 2002, Zhang Zifan has borrowed religious theories such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, distorted various values ​​promoted by the real society, and mixed in some chicken soup for the soul to concoct a set of bluffing "Life Chanyuan" concepts. After that, he used the pen name "Xue Feng" to collect these so-called ideas into books, and successively printed books such as "Xue Feng Collected Works", "Zen Yuan Collected Works", and "Eight Hundred Ideas of Humanity in the New Era". Later, these books also became an important tool for Zhang Zifan to exercise mental control over his believers."
      ・"現實版1Q84‥婚姻是痛苦根源" [Reality version 1Q84: Marriage is the source of pain]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
      The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，生命禪院的﹁理論基礎﹂是雪峰數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。唯一聽懂的其中一項核心理念‥婚姻家庭是痛苦根源。 ... ﹁我們的情愛性愛是比較自由的！﹂從紐西蘭回國、年約30歲的雙胞胎姊妹顏渝和顏瑾，是生命禪院裡擁有高學歷的成員，她們在海外原本過著很好的生活、擁有良好的職業，但受這兒純樸的集體生活吸引，去年6月加入。"
       From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is Xuefeng's hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which makes people confused. One of the core concepts I only understand: marriage and family are the source of suffering. ... "Our love and sex are relatively free!" Twin sisters Yan Yu and Yan Jin, about 30 years old, who returned from New Zealand, are highly educated members of Lifechanyuan. They used to live a very happy life overseas. I have a good life and a good career, but I was attracted by the simple collective life here and joined in June last year."
      ・"﹁共妻淫亂﹂ 生命禪院被斷水電 雲南﹁第二家園﹂ 性愛自由、人人皆﹁情人﹂ 成員改名換姓務農自足3分院面臨解散" ["Shared Wife and Fornication" Lifechanyuan was cut off from water and electricity. Yunnan's "Second Home" offers free sex and everyone is a "lover". Members changed their names to work in farming and are self-sufficient. Branch 3 is facing dissolution.]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
      The article notes: "中國唯一自稱真正實施共產主義的社區─雲南省﹁生命禪院第二家園﹂，近日遭當局以﹁共產共妻聚眾淫亂﹂等理由取締，三個分院面臨解散危機。港媒近日深入該社區，發現區內雖推崇性愛自由、以女性為尊，卻沒有想像中的肉慾橫流，而是由失婚婦女與逃避社會壓力的年輕人等，以各自獨立又相互合作的方式共同生活。"
       From Google Translate: "The only community in China that claims to truly implement communism, the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan Province, was recently banned by the authorities on the grounds of "communist wives gathering together for lewdness", and the three branches are in danger of being disbanded. Hong Kong media recently went deep into the community and discovered that although sexual freedom and respect for women are respected in the community, it is not as sensual as imagined. Instead, divorced women and young people escaping from social pressure work independently and cooperatively. live together."
       The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，位於雲南的﹁生命禪院第二家園﹂成立至今四年多，園內約150名成員皆不得擁有私人財產，且放棄原本姓名，改用被稱為﹁精神導遊﹂的56歲創建者﹁雪峰﹂賜名，彼此則互稱﹁禪院草﹂。"
       From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that it has been more than four years since the establishment of the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan. About 150 members of the park are not allowed to own private property, and have given up their original names and replaced them with the 56-year-old "spiritual tour guide." The founder "Xue Feng" gave the name to each other, and they called each other "Zen Yuan Cao"."
      ・"﹁婚姻是痛苦根源﹂" ["Marriage is a source of suffering"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
      The article notes: "雪峰告訴記者生命禪院的﹁理論基礎﹂是他數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。"
       From Google Translate: "Xuefeng told reporters that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is his hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which made people confused."
      ・"云南社区 共产共妻 性爱自由回归自然" [Yunnan community communism and wife sharing, sexual freedom returns to nature]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. A23.
      The article notes: "中国云南一个自称是真正实施共产主义的社区，近日被官方以“聚众淫乱”为由，即将面临取缔。香港︽苹果日报︾记者近日采访这个推崇性爱自由、回归自然的“生命禅院第二家园”。记者发现，社区没有想像中的肉欲横流。官方指控的所谓“聚众淫乱”，其实他们是不鼓励一对一的爱情或性关系。生命社区第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有3所分院。社区常驻人口150人，投入集体生活前要经半年考察，加入社区后可随时退出。"
       From Google Translate: "A community in Yunnan, China, which claims to be the real implementation of communism, has been officially banned recently on the grounds of "gathering people for lewdness". A reporter from Hong Kong's "Apple Daily" recently interviewed this "Lifechanyuan Second Home", which advocates freedom of sex and returning to nature. The reporter found that the community was not as sensual as imagined. The so-called "gathering of people for lewdness" that the authorities accuse is actually discouraging one-to-one love or sexual relationships. Life Community Second Home was founded in 2009 and has 3 branches in Yunnan Province. The permanent population of the community is 150. Before joining the collective life, a six-month inspection is required. After joining the community, you can withdraw at any time."
      ・"三所分院常驻人口051人" [The three branches have a permanent population of 051.]. China Press (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. B5.
      The article notes: "生命禅院第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有三所分院，常驻人口150人，年纪最大的87岁，最小的5岁。投入集体生活前要经半年考察，在网上交流，可随时退出。"
       From Google Translate: "Lifechanyuan Second Home was founded in 2009. It has three branches in Yunnan Province with a permanent population of 150. The oldest is 87 years old and the youngest is 5 years old. Before joining the collective life, you need to undergo an inspection for half a year, communicate online, and you can withdraw at any time."
      There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shengmin Chanyuan (simplified Chinese: 生命禅院; traditional Chinese: 生命禪院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
      Cunard (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard well done as always bringing the sources. The difficulty I have with this article is the disconnect between what's in the page and what can be documented. Let's assume someone wants to do the significant revision required to eliminate proselytizing and otherwise unencyclopedic content. What would then be left would be three propositions:
  • there was a commune in Yunnnan in the late 1990's and early 2000s - well established, can almost get to notability with the NYT article but Apple Daily seems to be based on information the founder has provided to them, not independent journalism. I couldn't find the world journal articles but if they are just regurgitating A.D.... Nanyang Siang Pau maybe?
  • there was a crackdown - well established through Chinese media, can describe them based on Chinese media reports plus the Introvigne article. There's a bunch of unreliable media out there as well on this.
  • the founder moved to Canada and his organization continues to recruit members while he refines his philosophy and issues volume after volume of deep thoughts - notability not well established except through self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability
Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a good outline of the topics that could be covered in article. The article could also cover what Shengmin Chanyuan's followers believe since pages 60–62 of Introvigne 2022 discuss that. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've done my part revising the article so it is based on reliable sources. I had to put in some primary sources just to bring the article up to date as AFAIK no reliable secondary source has mentioned them since they came to Canada. I'll change my vote to keep provided that the article remains objective.
    One final comment - the article was created as Lifechanyuan International Family Society apparently following the rejection of Lifechanyuan at AfC. LIFS is the Canada reboot of the Chinese commune. The rebuilt article is about Lifechanyuan as a movement rather than the Canadian commune, suggest a rename to Lifechanyuan once this is finished. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Apple newspaper was in Hongkong and they are one of the medias resisting Communist Party, so they came and interviewed some members, but they were not reporting our community in an objective angle, they are using it to attack the Central government. And the official source claiming we were illegal in 2021 is the media from Chinese government.
    The New York Times reported us in around the end of 2013 when we were facing the 1st disbandment from authority.
    For the times and facts, there are some mistakes as well.
    I appreciate your effort of investigating the sources and try to introduce in your way, but what it is is what it is, and what is fact is fact, this is not an academic content, cannot be edited by the way of only based on limited sources. On behalf of our society, we require to delete it, let people search and investigate, read and experience by themselves, but not by the limit information and reports from non-independant medias. Thank you. Tongxincao (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is neutrally written and sourced to reliable sources (except for two sentences appropriately sourced to the company's website and a press release that explains what the group's beliefs and its current practice). Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself says:

    Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.

    Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your excellent work cleaning up the article, Oblivy (talk · contribs)! I really appreciate it! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We hope this can be deleted because the information is not correct, objective, and complete, for example it says "couples sleep separately", this is so wierd in expression and will scare and mislead people. The truth is that everyone in the community is independent so there is no "couples" or "marriages" in the community. This will mislead people so much, therefore it will mislead the public seriously on what real Lifechanyuan is. Tongxincao (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please raise further content concerns about the article on Talk:Lifechanyuan International Family Society as those concerns belong on the talk page rather than at AfD. The New York Times article says, "Certainly, some aspects of the group’s structure and practices are rather unorthodox. Members are known as celestials, all property is shared, and couples sleep apart." The wording in the Wikipedia article is an accurate paraphrase of The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Couples sleep apart" is not a correct and complete description, because there is no marriage and family in the new life mode of the Second Home, and couples are well prepared for this before they decided to join the community and live a collective community life. Therefore, each part of the original couple has their own bedroom, but they can sleep together when they feel like to do so. As an adult, everyone has their own bedroom as the space of his/her own. The reporter from New York Times visited us when we are encountering disbandment in the end of 2013, so they just stayed for several hours and did really quick interview with limited information being understand and collected.
I have mentioned several times all the sources being quoted here is limited and there is not a deep and complete report introducing what Lifechanyuan and the Second Home really is. Plus there are mistakes on time, date, and place, number of members around the world etc. So please delete this item as it is spreading wrong and one-sided information when using the world "fled to Canada", whatever the reason is, "fled" already shows the judgement of the editor here and this is not subjective description, but very objective description. We are from lifechanyuan and you raised the conflict of interest rule, so we cannot prove ourseles, but the edtion here definitely cannot represent what Lifechanyuan international family society is either. Please delete this edition to avoid the misunderstanding and mislead the public. Let them know, analysis, and judge by themselves, but not by you. Tongxincao (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 2 May 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) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment during the first listing there were two explicit votes, both keep, plus the nom. No other participation since then except for two SPA accounts affiliated with the article subject (one is on the AfD talk page). Reading the comments liberally, the SPA's initially voted for keep, then flipped to delete once the article was revised to reflect policy on secondary sources. SPA's aren't happy with the revised article as it doesn't tell the story as they want it told, but @Cunard and I have been trying to channel this to the talk page where I've accepted some of their proposed fact edits while holding the line on independent sourcing.
@Discospinster are you still thinking the revised article is !delete? Are the comments by COI/SPA editors blocking consensus? What other shoe needs to drop? I feel like I'm being a WP:Bludgeon but the stream of complaints about how we're "misleading" the public by insisting on WP:RS is getting tiring. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better in terms of sourcing, but if we're going to end up with content warring issue due to involved editors, I don't know if it should be "live" until some sort of consensus emerges on the talk page. If that makes any sense. ... discospinster talk 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does make sense, sort of. I just don't know what we're supposed to reach consensus over - the argument seems to be that secondary/independent sources mislead compared to primary/promo, and that just isn't going to reach a policy-based consensus.(Introvigne is actually quite sympathetic to the group but they still quibble). We don't usually delete articles over WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
At this point it's been relisted, and the admins are doing their level best to keep things from piling up ATM so I don't want to make an issue over the relisting (although perhaps one more closed AfD could ease that burden!). I'm just hoping to distill down what the issues are so maybe we don't get to a 3rd relisting. Oblivy (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oblivy and other Editors of the article, thank you very much for your effort of making the article subjective and neutral，I apologize for the part that might offend you during the period, as I don't know about the rules here so it's very hard for us to understand the discussion. I can only share the facts and the truth as we have the record of our history, please kindly understand. We appreciate the openness that you showed and consider what we raise up here.
The article looks much neutral now, while there are some details still need to be corrected:
"They later moved to Hetan in Gansu."
-- In April 2009 Xuefeng came back from Zimbabwe, meet with near 2000 members in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, then in May with around 30 members they moved to Kunming, Yunnan to establish the first Second Home community. There is not a "Henan" in Gansu, "Henan" and "Gansu" are both provinces of China.
"He took the name Xuefeng and started Lifechanyuan in 2005".
-- It was started in 2001, as he started writting the Chanyuan Corpus and Xuefeng Corpus in 2001 in Zimbabwe, when he posted his articles on the website of ”中国魂“ (Chinese Souls) and other Chinese website platforms. In 2004, with the help of one member who knows IT visited him in Zimbabwe, Lifechanyuan established its own website, and later moved to anther server in 2005.
"According to Chinese sources, the organization had about 2,000 members in 2021, of which about 100 were active."
-- The number of members temporarily reached to a peak of near 2000 in 2009, but after that many of them left( most of which joined because of family relations and did not understand well about the core of Lifechanyuan), so the latest number is around 400, of which around 200 is active.
And the last, "the office of society" is not in Vancouver, it is in Lac La Hache BC before we bought the new resort, and now it is in Anahim Lake, BC with an update on BC society website.
Thank you and I promise with my faith, I'm only telling the facts, did not exaggerate or reduce the facts.
Thank you again for your time, work and patience on this. Tongxincao (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please raise edit requests at the talk page of the article, and for each please provide the reliable source that supports the edit. One specific note: Hetan (河滩) is in Dongxiang County, Gansu and I believe that sentence is fully supported by the cited source. Oblivy (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oblivy, I agree that among non-COI editors there is a consensus that the subject meets the notability guideline since the sources have not been contested. These two relists have given the AfD's participants and the rest of the community more time to discuss evaluate the sources presented in the AfD. If no concerns are raised about the sources' independence, depth, and reliability after the additional time given by these relists, it strengthens the case for a "keep" close (though the closer could go with "no consensus" owing to the limited participation).

    The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

    Oblivy (talk · contribs) has done admirable work in rewriting the article to be neutral and incorporating the feedback from a COI editor when the changes can be verified by independent reliable sources. Thank you again for your excellent work here.

    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors contains good advice for both COI editors and editors responding to COI editors. The guideline says:

    Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

    Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.

    Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

    To Oblivy, if reviewing feedback from COI editors becomes tedious or a burden, I recommend asking them to submit an edit request on the talk page so that another editor can review. That way, it doesn't become a time sink for you. See for example my response to Special:Contributions/Winmark update after I reverted their promotional edits. They started an edit request, which was declined by another editor for not being supported by reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early recreation once sources materialize, as is often the case when approaching elections. The Keep !voters did not raise a valid argument, and appear canvassed. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections

AfDs for this article:
2025 Western Australian local elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added
I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished
Next Australian federal election was created a couple weeks after the 2022 election, 2025 Western Australian state election was created in very early 2023, 2026 Victorian state election was created in 2023, etc
There's only about a year-and-a-half left until these elections
See also WP:FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well
This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to Keep are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would assist in closing this discussion but for the record if the vote opposing deletion doesn't get up I would prefer draftify as suggested by @Teraplane and @TarnishedPath Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) rather than total deletion 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be a keep regardless the number of keep votes because the keep rational is extremely weak. TarnishedPathtalk 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep and no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipi Singh

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

nothing notable, regular SP level rank officer, regular coverage that all SPs have Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Bihar. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is highly notable and covered by large number of news sources for various reasons. This is not the case of WP:1E and many articles about bureaucrats exist on Wikipedia with less number of sources than this. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like this and this fulfills WP: THREE. Many such sources are there on web.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those with the knowledge of India will know that such coverage is widely available for almost of the SPs/DMs. MILL. 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue and whats the meaning of notability then.? Admantine123 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Admantine123, also subject clearly passes WP:THREE, Thanks! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is very notable who is also known as Lady Singham by major media sources. Simple search on her brings up many major media news sites with enough coverage on her and her significant achievements as IPS officer. Page has many reliable sources with enough coverage. Passes WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hum Awards. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Honorary Phenomenal Serial Award

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE and the few references are basically just verification that they exist. CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 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) 04:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nominators withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Moon (film)

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

I came across this film to review at NPP. A general overview of it showed it requires cleaning up, I tried to do that but was caught up with off wiki life. I decided to take a research on the film and later to consider if there is any source or coverage. At the end of the day, we have an article that doesn't meet WP:NFP. The sources cited were also not WP:NFSOURCES as they weren't reliable or saying/reviewing anything about the movie.

I also tried WP:ATD, and I must say here, thst there is nothing here per WP:NFOE. Additional problem of lacking coverage.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:49, 2 May 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) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Sun Moon. Dove Review". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "But when we finally witness Kelsey face her fears, and learn new ways to manage her grief, we understand her growth and subsequent purpose is enabled by these circumstances. This sweet movie encourages discussion in a subtle way around the faithfulness of God in the face of grief and loss. Sun Moon is a quiet film that reminds us in a powerful way that throughout the circumstances of our lives, God is ever-present and can create purpose from our pain."

    2. VanDriel, Marty (2023-05-04). "Sun Moon. Pure Flix's enjoyable drama shows the beauty of Taiwan, but its message falls short". World. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "The film also doesn’t explain why the Lord would lead someone to leave her family in tough circumstances. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem, but when a studio promotes a movie with the ­promise of “family, faith and transformation,” it does leave one seeking a little more. The characters also lack some dimension, and Sun Moon doesn’t quite pull off the illusion of reality, leaving viewers with an enjoyable experience, but nothing as transformational as promised."

    3. Jackson, Joe (2022-04-11). "Taiwan-US feature Sun Moon wraps up filming in Nantou". The Location Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The article notes: "Sun Moon has finished shooting in and around Taiwan’s Nantou region. The project is jointly produced by AFFIRM Films (a subsidiary of Sony Pictures) and the Taiwanese-Canadian Stone Soup Production Company. Steve Taylor and Luke Cameron were on producer duties in the USA and Taiwan respectively, and the film was directed by Sydney Tooley."

    4. Smith, Shona (2021-07-22). "Sony Pictures' Sun Moon in pre-production in Taiwan". The Location Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The article notes: "Set in Taiwan's Sun Moon Lake region the drama-romance couldn’t fake Taiwan’s stunning scenery. Despite Covid-19 disruption pre-production is underway for a three-week shoot in August. Writer/director Sydney Tooley’s screenplay for Sun Moon (co-written with Susan Issacs) was inspired by her experiences living in Taiwan, where her parents still reside. The film is a drama-romance about a young woman named Kelsey who is running from failure in America and takes an ESL position at a school in Taiwan to escape it all. She battles bugs, deciphers Mandarin and ultimately comes to the understanding that she can run but she can’t hide from the life she tried to leave behind."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sun Moon to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Location Guide a reliable source? I think I can go with one and two. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position. Location Guide has editorial oversight. This page lists a Locations Editor. The About page notes, "We publish up-to-date information and contacts in print, online, via social media and through our events and awards ceremonies that are used by productions for filming on location around the world. No matter the type, size or production budget we help production professionals make the smartest decisions to maximise production values and the bottom line."

I am not familiar with this website but in my review of it I have found nothing to indicate it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Andorra helicopter crash

2011 Andorra helicopter crash (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Accident has some coverage (all in French with some of them in Catalan) but fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Event doesn't demonstrate lasting effects and fails the event criteria. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - so with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? I would've said delete if there was less deaths but since this accident was relatively old, i say just leave but help clean up the article (grammar, punctuation, date, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether or not Flight 708 should be included is another discussion.

    From the inclusion criteria:
    1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Barely meets the criterion
    2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
    3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
    4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
    Already fails nearly all four of the criteria.

    Recommendations REC 48/13 and 49/13 were all issued to the operator, so whilst these may have improved the operator's safety, nationwide or internationally, the accident did not have major lasting effects. Final Report

    Since 2011, there hasn't been any news surrounding the event failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [18] [19] [20] [21]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article poorly describes his notability under WP:AUTHOR at present, and does need a significant rewrite to the Career section. But David Eppstein has convinced me that he does indeed meet that criterion. Qflib (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (2014 TV series)

Sirens (2014 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)

Non-notable USA Network TV show that fails WP:GNG. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (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)

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC
  • Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ based on strength of policy/guideline-based arguments to delete. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Khan (actor)

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. Also, the ad hominem comment in the nominator's rationale is quite inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you provide evidence from WP:RS to demonstrate how the subject meets WP:N? My comment is relevant because there are concerns about problematic user behavior. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're directing me to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Just read it, please. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, My previous comment may not have been clear. You mentioned the actor did various significant roles in notable productions but I haven't been able to confirm tha via RSt. So far, I've failed to find evidence in RS that this actor had various significant roles in notable productions as being claimed. The actor only had a lead role in Resham Gali Ki Husna but even that is not considered a significant work, given that the article was created by a UPE account. A Google search hasn't yielded any solid evidence to prove that Resham Gali Ki Husna was a significant work. The same issues apply to the other shows in which this actor played a part—they are not all significant work, and the actor doesn't have lead roles in them, only minor ones. If you can provide evidence to the contrary from RS, I would appreciate it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He mention how did he got into acting [29]. He said that dramas Dil Lagi and Muthi Bhar Mohabbat made him well known [30].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    As a creator of this BLP, you're supposed to provide good sourcing which also meet WP:RS - Unfortunately, goodtimes.com.pk does not meet this criteria. Whereas the Express Tribune piece alone may not adequately demonstrate that subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep another vague WP:AfD when the nominator possess lack of knowledge of subject matter. The actor is notable as per WP:NACTOR, have acted in multiple blockbuster serials as lead as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.29.217 (talk • contribs)
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Care to provide some sources? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[31] and Daily Times ones, also Bol News provides reference about his personal life as well. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodtimes.com.pk is not a RS. Where's link to coverage in Daily Times? Bol News is not a RS either to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bol News is an independent journalism TV channel for which your WP:AfD subject Waqar Zaka have worked, how it's not WP:RS? And Daily Times reference is listed in the article. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm NOT referring to the TV channel, but specifically the website of BOL News. The website publishes PROMO, paid content and CHURNALISM-styled stories without proper fact-checking, making it unreliable for BLPs, especially. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still I feel Daily Times source is WP:RS. Similarly sources from news channels media are WP:RS, there are already other paid media websites in Pakistan for CHURNALISM.182.182.29.217 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: This IP has finally admitted that they have no awareness about WP:RS, which I interpret as having no experience with what WP:RS entails. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said, I was unaware but after discussion at Draft talk:Gumn, I got the understanding. Don't fit in discussion from other context here. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
182.182.29.217, Just admit you're not familiar with WP:RS because at-least three of your recent drafts (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft:Gumn and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) have been turned down by other reviewers for using non-RS to create articles on unwarranted subjects. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why you're disregarding comprehensive discussion Draft talk:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft talk:Gumn, Draft talk: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series)? They gave me an understanding of it that's why I have assessed article should be kept. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've understood WP:RS, why do you insist on keeping this BLP when it's still citing unreliable sources? Why haven't you provided coverage from RS to verify your claims? You're just vaguely named sources without providing specific links to coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling them unreliable sources, as per my assessment they're WP:RS. Since you've reviewed the article, can't you identify the sources by their websites? I find it quite rankling to provide sources again and again. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment is incorrect because, like I mentioned above, you seem to misunderstand WP:RS. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS before defending them. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my opinion, your assesyis incorrect. You should give a benefit of doubt while reviewing articles with such WP:RS. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
IP blocked. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLPs require strong sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO, NACTOR. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found, promo, interviews, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  07:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources pretty marginal per WP:DEPTH per above delete arg, not to mention the sockish editing in support of keeping. Next time, bring this through AfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO

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

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

  1. Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
  2. Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
  3. Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
  4. Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
  5. Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
  6. Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
  7. Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
  8. Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
  9. Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. JavaHurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that works too, but it's a bit moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Rauscher

Frederick Rauscher (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:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Junior School

Sarah Junior 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)

PROD countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although happy to consider a suitable redirect. I'm sorry but there is just not enough information about this school, as is the case of the vast majority of junior schools. Yes, this one is a charitable venture. Lots of them are. There are now four sources on the page. I analyse these below (with the first SHOFCO source being the only one that was there prior to AfD). On my analysis we do not have anything that meets WP:SIRS. There is almost nothing we can actually say about this school in an article. Source analysis:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
SHOFCO [35] Yes SHOFCO is Shining Hope for Communities, US based, I think it is a charity, and with a focus on Kibera. Yes SHOFCO appears legitimate. I have not investigated too hard on that score because this source fails on SIGCOV No The link is dead, but it is dated April 2009, and archive.org has a copy of the article [36]. There is no mention of this school at all in the article. As there is no mention of the school, this is moot.
Charity Commission [37] Yes Yes No An overview of the charity, Maisha Tust. Nothing about th school. The charity is small too. No This is a primary source.
Optima [38] Yes Yes Fitzwilliam College Newsletter with news of an alumna, the school's founder. No There is a single paragraph telling us that Sarah Shucksmith, a former Geography student, founded this school in her gap year, and they are building a new school building. It's creditable, but it's not notable. – It is reporting and this is primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as I know people will want to claim otherwise, and SIGCOV is not met anyway, I'll leave that as undetermined. It does not change anything.
Rus Newton [39] No This is a WP:SPS - a blog is a self published source – I have no reason to say the writer is unreliable, but this is still self published. Yes To be honest, this would be well short of CORPDEPTH, but I would give ground to this being a charitable work, not a corporation. There is a little information here from which a page could be written, but it really isn't much. A lot more is needed, but I'll give it a yes on this one. Yes y

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 2 May 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) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lump-sum tax. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed tax

Fixed tax (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 do not know much about taxes, but I believe this topic may already be covered by Lump-sum tax. I am not certain if they are actually redundant. What do you think? If so, I recommend a redirect to Lump-sum tax. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 2 May 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) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lump-sum tax per nom. Look to be practically one and the same. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article is based on a certain essay or book from the wording, maybe we can ask the author to submit citations? I'm not familiar for topics that should be removed or not, the information on Australia present here is not mentioned in the lump-sum tax article. O.maximov (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Aliyev

Subhan Aliyev (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 GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 2 May 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) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious notability, written in the style of advertisment. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firuza, who wrote the article, also needs his opinion. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. !Keep votes aren't based in policy, but no case made for why this doesn't work as an ATD Star Mississippi 18:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Rahme

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable
Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody argues for keeping the article (I do not interpret "Sigh" as "keep"). Sandstein 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Msumarini

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

This is basically a procedural/WP:TNT nomination. This was plainly mass-created from GNS or one of its mirrors, and it has the same kinds of issues that GNIS has (see WP:GNIS for info on the latter}. We said we weren't going to do this any more, and yet here we are. For the "save all the dots" crew, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are not precise enough to compare this with maps, and searching reveals that there is a second Msumarini which apparently has been for whatever reason the subject of several international aid efforts— I say "apparently" because it's not absolutely clear which of the two places they are talking about. So potentially this would be a disambiguation, or about the other place, but at present I cannot verify whether not this is a real place or not. Kenyan info is probably better than some other places, but for example in Somalia with better location data we deleted a lot of places because there was no good evidence for their existence. And in the end it makes sense to delete the lot of these and have them created from better, reliable sources when someone comes across them. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thought I'd blitzed all of these but evidently not... MIDI (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. This is clearly a notable place, but it looks like there are up to three different villages called Msumarini and two in Kilifi county alone - one in Mtepeni ward and one in Adu ward, and then one in Hindi ward, Lamu. The vast majority are for the Mtepeni ward, though I have seen at least a couple for Adu ward (they say it is in a particular constituency.) These articles do not make a distinction between the two places and these places are both occasionally spelled Musumarini. So, yes, there should be an article here, but it should probably be a disambiguation - but there are plenty of reliable sources out there for at least the Mtepeni ward Msumarini, even though I can't confirm it necessarily passes WP:GEOLAND. Any further help would be appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillfields

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

No evidence of meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:139.184.129.181 placed the following text incorrectly under my nomination: "Wikipedia states however that " Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." From me: This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only coverage I can find is the single paragraph live review in Drowned In Sound (referenced in the article). No RS reviews of any of their releases that I can find. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • bit of a shame you can't seem to read the Spanish articles included in the reference sections, where it states clearly the notability of the LP release in the context of the time it was released. It can't be all about charts and fame, this page is about rescuing music. If renowned DJ like Gideon Coe plays their music on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 6, I'd assume it is a relevant artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angandi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. If it is closed as a Soft Deletion, it will just be restored the next day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails notability criteria of WP:BAND and almost all references just contain passing mentions or simply listings of the band. InDimensional (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Bathtub. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable bathtub

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

This is a procedural nomination for a contested WP:BLAR.

The listed sources in the article constitute passing mentions in promotional material, or are primary sources (a patent for a type of inflatable bathtub). A search does not suggest any WP:SIGCOV of the topic, or any notability independent of bathtub. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumen Shankulov

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in his native Cyrillic or in Hebrew (for his time in Israel)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if no significant coverage can be found. With no prejudice to recreation if someone is eventually able to find sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[40] [41] [42] and [43] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [44], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [45], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets NLIST [46], [47], [48], [49]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus that the topic passes the WP:NLIST criteria. "Merge" was suggested as an alternative to deletion by some editors, but that included a couple of editors whose primary choice was "Keep." — CactusWriter (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (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 every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. trout Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is clearly noteworthy per Translating The Lord of the Rings and meets WP:NLIST. The list is too big to be merged into the main article. – SD0001 (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. McKeon

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My off-wiki experience evaluating philosophers is that it's kind of strange. They often don't have many journal citations, nor books with many reviews, but the other philosophers in the same subdiscipline still have a strong idea who the important ones are, and I don't know how to guess that from the public record. In the case of McKeon, we definitely have nothing in the citation record nor the article that would suggest notability. Searching for reviews of his book The Concept of Logical Consequence is confusing because of Etchemendy's very notable and well cited book with the same title. I found only one review, by Núñez Puertas in Apuntes Filosóficos [50], far from enough even to justify an article on the book instead of its author. He does appear to have another book, Arguments and Reason-Giving, for which I found no reviews at all. In the absence of access to whatever information the philosophers use to evaluate their own, I think we have to go on what we can see for ourselves, and that's not very much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could not find anything that supports WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, with no reviews found on JSTOR. I simply cannot find any strong arguments in support of notability. --hroest 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele (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)

In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no coverage in English or Spanish of the event claimed to be taking place in a few weeks' time. It's been draftified and redirected, but this always gets immediately reverted. Article creator was globally locked for LTA, and reversions are being done by new account and anonymously, and always without comment. Rather than continue a draftifying war, I'm bringing it here to AFD for discussion. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5. The sockmaster per es.wiki block log is User:Jocer Blandino, who's also been blocked here. The most significant edits to the article have pretty much just been tags. Assuming an administrator also agrees, speedy delete without salting in case someone not block evading can make a better version. jellyfish ✉ 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Changing my vote here to delete per Wikishovel to prevent the treadmill! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too have suspected User:Jocer Blandino sock. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought of G5, but as the chief draft-reverter looks like another sock, they'd probably just recreate it following G5, rinse, repeat. Taking it to AFD avoids that treadmill, at least. I'm no expert on Salvadoran politics, but it sounds plausible that they have multiple inauguration ceremonies following consecutive reelections, as is done in the US, Philippines, etc. So I'm in favour of holding off on G5 for now, and would prefer that someone could definitively show that there will or won't be a second inauguration. Wikishovel (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jocer Blandino if you're at all familiar with the master here. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jellyfish, @Wikishovel, SPI has confirmed sock. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per nom. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • CU Note The two main authors were indeed socks of the same globally banned user. It would have been eligible for G5 in my view, but happy for this discussion to continue to establish a consensus on notability. Girth Summit (blether) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My final (I promise) vote after CU confirmed it was a sock - delete without prejudice to it being remade as a draft. As Wikishovel said earlier, WP:TOOSOON applies and this event could be notable if the article had any sources. Holding out hope for the best - it'll turn into a notable article when sources appear and a good editor recreates it, or it'll serve as a nice honeypot for the socks. jellyfish ✉ 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cook Islands national football team#Player records. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Miitamariki

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_9&oldid=1223008308"