Purge server cache

City of Lower North Shore (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 reliable sources. I searched google and no results found. The page creator did not add any categories or links into the pages and it looks like a hoax. AyEfDee (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't believe this has existed for 7 years. Could not find any sources either. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Communication (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)

Last AfD in 2017 was no consensus. I tend to agree with one of the delete voters' comments from last time "Lacks reviews, sales, charting, depth of coverage. Current sources just verify it's existence but don't provide any real independent coverage". An added Amazon source hardly adds to notability, Australian Music Online is just a database listing. Still fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not much more but this. Reviews sparse as search results show until now. Would be a shame. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option and it's not clear what outcome User:Ouro is advocating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Auguste Joseph de Laborde de Boutervilliers (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:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Accomplishments and sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jean Joseph de Laborde, Marquis of Laborde, his more notable father. I do see coverage of Ange Auguste Joseph in [1], but its very much in the context of his father. (Édouard Jean Joseph de Laborde de Marchainville should likely get the same treatment.) Jfire (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double Album (NOFX album) (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 both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM because the media have written in-depth descriptions of this album. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do you mean "have not written"? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Scuse me whaaat? Liberal pick from the reviews quickly found on Google: [2], [3]. [4], [5]. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not enough WP:BEFORE work was done here, and the article simply needs expansion. The album's release announcement was profiled (briefly) by the reliable Pitchfork [6], and then it received reliable pro reviews from Kerrang [7] and New Noise [8]. It was also reviewed by a lot of lesser-known but still valid punk magazines like Wall of Sound [9] and others found by the voter above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Ouro, I don't know how to interpret your comment. Could you simplify it into our standard language of Keep, Delete, Redirect, Draftify or Merge? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Dakota State Trojans 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-5 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to decade article. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade (e.g., 2020-2025), and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this program. Unless these obstacles are overcome, deletion is the only viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles for Dakota State for every season from 2015 to 2024. Yes, indeed, regarding your first point, which is why AfD shouldn't be the first move on articles like. It would be better to recruit editors like SS2027, who created this run of Dakota State articles, and others at WP:CFB. Is the coverage of Dakota State so sparse it can't even justify a decade article? In theory, maybe, but probably not considering your own creations like 2022 Ohio Athletic Conference football season and 2022 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've created Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019, merged all the content from the 2015 through 2019 articles, and redirected the 2016 through 2019 season articles. Would you withdraw this nomination, and then we can redirect this article there as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of Dakota State, so I have liked to do my part to help record their history. I completely understand when a page I create, especially when they are just an NAIA team, gets taken down for not relevant enough. I'm just an amateur at this and like to do it as a hobby, so I don't fully understand what it takes for a page to be relevant enough. I like the idea of a decades article and would gladly contribute to that. I'd definitely like to do a 'Dakota State Trojans football, 1970–79' article too, as that's when they won 5 conference championships, a bowl game, and had an undefeated season. SS2027 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating a target article. I have no objection to the proposed merger as an ATD, but withdrawal is not available since there is a delete vote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thus this is AFD is now is a futile exercise in wiki-bureaucracy. No matter what arguments anyone makes here now, there's no reason not to redirect 2015 Dakota State Trojans football team to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. Which is why opening this AfD was the wrong move in the first place. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV is here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Dakota State Trojans 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-4 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to decade article. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade (e.g., 2020-2025), and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this program. Unless these obstacles are overcome, deletion is the only viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can an editor provide a link to the suggested merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Dakota State Trojans 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 1-9 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's articles on each Dakota State season from 2015 to 2024 – perhaps merge them all into a decade article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) decade articles are normally done from the start of a decade to the end (e.g., 2010-2019), and in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade, and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this progrm. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What set of years do you think would be necessary to have them merged? Perhaps the creator, @SS2027:, would be willing to do a merger article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, decade articles run from the beginning to the end of a decade. E.g., 2010-2019 or 2020-2025. If someone cared to create such an article and populate it with SIGCOV from multiple, reliable sources, that might work, but absent that, deletion is the only currently viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1900 Atlanta Baptist 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This orphan sub-stub is about a small-college football team that apparently played only one game. The season is so lacking in notability that we don't even have information on the date of the game or the location where the game was played. Moreover, the article lacks any WP:SIGCOV and is based entirely on non-independent sources. On 10/31/24, I notified the article creator that the article needed better sourcing, but three months have passed, and no new sourcing has been added. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Science Center (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 an article about a local museum with little notability outside of town that has now closed. Only recent articles are about its closure from local sources. Braedencapaul (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Science, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Appleton,_Wisconsin#Arts_and_culture: only sourcing I can find is re: its closure. Merits a brief mention here given the paper history of region. HoF isn't an option since it redirects to Atlas article Star Mississippi 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the proposed merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho Group (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)

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, Transportation, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the administrator who declined G4. I just wanted to come by and say that the previous discussion was in 2016, nine years ago, and that since then the company has apparently achieved a valuation of $1.2 billion and has undergone five rounds of venture capital fundraising. That seems quite significant. -- Y not? 00:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The last AfD discussion was nine years ago. Since then, the company has grown into a unicorn group with diverse business interests and has been extensively covered by numerous reliable secondary sources. The sources cited in the article are reliable, provide significant coverage, and meet WP:NCORP. Plenty more coverage can be found online.. DJ allu (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ánimo Inglewood Charter High 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, the article seems to be WP:PROMO, as it sounds like it was possibly written by the school itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log for almost 24 hours until I transcluded it with this edit. Not sure what the best procedure is here, but you may want to relist to ensure the debate has a full seven days of visibility. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several schools with similar names, which may have complicated any WP:BEFORE search that was attempted; this appears to be the one that had the fatal bus crash, not the one that had the big fire.[10] Several sources are easily found in Google News:

• "Can Inglewood's NFL-fueled turnaround be a success if its schools are failing?". Los Angeles Times. 2016-02-13. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
• "Inglewood schools officials fight charter school, again". LAist. 2017-03-14. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
• "Animo Inglewood Charter High School known for its high academic standards" (video). Los Angeles Times. 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

A full search would also consider Green Dot Public Schools, a non-profit organization that operates this and several other charter schools (enough others that I'm not sure that merging them all into the same article would be feasible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College Debating Union (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)

Promotional/COI article from 2011. I'm unable to find significant independent coverage of the team itself except for brief reporting on one debate against a prison debate team. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Plus (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 nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Plus, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Plus. The single source cited is a primary source (a YouTube video from the channel itself), which is insufficient to establish notability. The article makes claims about the channel's launch and programming, but these are not supported by any independent verification. A redirect to StarPlus might be considerable. However, given the current lack of independent sourcing, deletion is the appropriate outcome. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suchithra Alexander (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:NCRIC. WP:BEFORE search gives no secondary sources. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: A Google Search came up with him being involved in a scandal in 2014 here, on the page of a newspaper, the Sri Lanka Guardian, with a Wikipedia article. This doesn't connect to his playing career, of course; we'll, perhaps unfortunately, have to use ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive for those, like is the case with a lot of Sri Lankan cricketers of that vintage. One source is still better than none...and if someone at WP:CRIC knows Tamil, maybe other sources can show themselves. I don't have a vote either way (he has enough matches for me not to support but not enough matches for me to oppose), but I wanted to point out I had found something about him. JustJamie820 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihobbyist (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 neologism, and does not meet our standards for it. There is actually a lot of usage of the term, but it's always referring to it in the context of its creator, and should be merged to the creator of the term, Jarret Brachman. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. It's hilarious, and I'm a fan of portmanteaux myself (I invented mergetarian in 2008), but as the years have passed, we've become more strict with notability. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (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 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will do the merge myself if the consensus is not to keep. There is coverage, it's just in the context of its creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability for this football referee. Meanwhile, none of the sources in the article seem to provide WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, and Netherlands. JTtheOG (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Libes (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 does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Manners, Duchess of Rutland (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)

She is married into nobility, and does not seem notable as a businesswoman or podcaster. I don't think a redirect to Belvoir_Castle#Present_use would benefit the reader, nor would a merger be Due. She's separated from David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland so I'm not sure a merger there makes sense, and redirecting a woman to her spouse always seems odd to me. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and England. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Roop (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)

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

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

WP:BLP of an actor and radio host, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or radio hosts, and a similarly poorly sourced article and semi-advertorialized about his show.
The attempted notability claim as an actor is a few small bit parts as a child actor in the 1980s, and the attempted notability claim as a radio host is small-market local radio stations, neither of which are "inherently" notable enough to guarantee a Wikipedia article without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for them -- but the article is referenced entirely to IMDb and other primary sources that are not support for notability, and has been flagged for notability concerns since 2017 without improvement.
There may also be a conflict of interest here, as the articles were both created by an WP:SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia on any other topic but these. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Gold (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 nominating this article for deletion because it fails to establish the notability of the subject, Utsav Gold, as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article provides no reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of Utsav Gold. Without verifiable evidence from reliable sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A redirect to Star Gold might be considerable. However, without such sources, deletion is appropriate. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as proposed The problem is that these are specialty channels in niche international markets with no original programming. The variant name Utsav was adopted so the Star name could be used by Disney+ in certain European markets. The other Utsav channels should get the same treatment. Standalone notability of this type of TV service is very rare. (NB: NTV is an essay and covers TV programming, not channels.) Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject isn’t Notable. Lacks supportive sources. Written like an essay. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub or draftify there is sourcing on which to write an article, but this AI/G12 (I just can't find the source) isn't it. I'll try to clean it while at Afd, but easiest to start over. Star Mississippi 02:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I stubbed it. It still may be a G12 but the G11 issues have been resolved. Star Mississippi 02:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Bharat (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 nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Bharat , as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Bharat itself. The sources currently cited in the article are about Star Bharat, a different channel[11]. This means there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence or notability of Utsav Bharat as a separate entity. A redirect to Star Bharat might be appropriate. However, without such sources, the article should be deleted. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Europe, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco (cartoonist) (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 in any RS, may not be notable PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No RS. This is about the best I could find [12]. What's used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cleis Press: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to be a stand alone article, and Cleis Press was the only significant(ish) company that published a large amount of his work (a 200 page collection). Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of learned societies (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)

Indiscriminate collection of links to Wikidata, a user-generated database, which is not a reliable source. There is more to say about this particular list, but I am not going there because that would likely just distract from the main point. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, and Lists. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. We should not be importing content from Wikidata, and that is the entirety of this list. It does not meet our standards for verifiability through reliable sourcing. And even for the entries that come with sources from Wikidata, they are of dubious independence from their subjects, generally formatted badly and unfixable by Wikipedia editing as the bad formatting comes from Wikidata. This should go as well for List of learned societies in the United States and List of learned societies in the United States, which have exactly the same issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you try to separate your misgivings of Wikidata from the issue of whether this list should exist (which is the purpose of AfD)? This is the version of the article before it was converted to a table (using WD). This does not use any data from Wikidata but you will see that it is far inferior, with less information and no references at all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it seems to me that there are two issues. First does the list meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and second is it a useful thing for navigation per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. On the latter point, this is a long list of wikilinks which is a recognised form of navigation, other examples include List of banks (alphabetical). Returning to the former point, the question is whether the list is of notable things to the extent that having the page helps with a user navigating the encyclopedia. On this point I'm currently undecided. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - So, returning to think about this some more. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source further nothing that the entirety of the list does not need to be noted just the group of things. So it would appear that a simple way to establish if a list of learned societies is notable is to see if reliable sources consider them as a group. Here are some references that do that 1 and 2 and 3

Clearly Learned society is a notable idea and reliable sources have considered them as a group. It also seems likely that a list sorted by country consisting of many blue wikilinks would be useful for navigation - for example by a reader wanting to see which learned society exists in their country.

JMWt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe address the actual issue discussed in the nomination, which is not whether such a list could in principle be encyclopedic, but whether the list we have, based entirely on import from Wikidata, is appropriate to have? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are to make judgements against the policies and guidelines of en.wiki which I did. As far as I know, the fact that the list came from wikidata is irrelevant, but maybe there's a guideline or policy that I don't know about that you would like to point to? JMWt (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikidata is not irrelevant here. Fact is that this list cannot be edited n WP. If one would want to change anything that is currently displayed in this list here, that is completely impossible and one has to go to WD and figure out how to make the desired change there! In addition, user-generated databases are not acceptable as sources and creating articles that are more or less automatically derived from such a database is a complete no-no. --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it can't be edited within en.wiki (which I didn't appreciate before) seems like an issue, albeit a solvable one if we don't like that.

  But this thing about "user-generated" content seems to me like we are talking about two different things. Usually when we talk about "user-generated" sources we are pointing to a dif which has given a reference which is a blog or other unedited and self-published material. I don't think when we talk about it we usually are meaning wikidata.

  Second, all lists on en.wiki are essentially user-generated because there are very few full lists in reliable sources for the majority of things we have lost pages for here. Also Wikipedia:NLIST doesn't even require a reliable source to show all of the things in the list.

  So we are really just back to a complaint about the formatting that wikidata produces and whether that's suitable for a page on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. The entirety of this list is imported from an unreliable source. Having a list with this title might not be completely beyond the pale in principle, but doing it to a minimum acceptable standard, and to provide value above and beyond the existence of Category:Learned societies would require blowing this page up and starting over. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalga Beach (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)

Intentional or not, from the clearly advertorial tone to the sources they provide to their own website, this is clearly a WP:BROCHURE and fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aden Governorate (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)

Ever since I joined Wikipedia, I've been trying to find the difference between Aden Governorate and Aden and today I am happy to announce that they are the exact same thing. Aden covers everything in this article except for the governor assassination part which should be merged and this article should be redirected to Aden.

This deletion would make it consistent with the Sanaa article which also includes the first-level subdivision 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article at Aden agreed with you, I would support. But nothing in Aden or Aden Governorate says they are coterminous or a consolidated entity. Do you have a source that they are the exact same thing? --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is I didn't find a source that shows them as two separate entities 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez Plus the Aden article does agree with me. Just a few hours ago before @2dk's copyedit the lead used to say: Aden is divided into eight districts: Tawahi, Mualla, Crater, Khur Maksar, Al Mansura, Dar Sad, Sheikh Othman, and Al Buraiqa. (Those are the districts of the Aden governorate which implies that they're the same thing) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source saying they're the same. We have sourcing saying the governorate exists; you need sourcing saying it doesn't. Listing things on two articles does not qualify. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, simply saying that there's similar info on both doesn't work. That might be a reason normally to merge articles, but subdivisions are considered inherently notable, so that doesn't work in this case. I can find several official bodies through a google search using the term "Aden Governorate," so I think we need some kind of affirmative sourcing that the governorate either does not exist, or is the same as the city. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Just FYI I want this to be merged and redirected to Aden. Aden Governorate is a thing, the same thing as Aden and I'd like to see the source that says that they are not 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when one article is mostly just info from another article, they can be merged, but since governorates are inherently article-worthy, in this case the solution is to build out the deficient article. From what I can tell, the City of Aden and Aden Governorate are separate actual entities, and therefore, get separate articles. --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A city isn't the same as a governorate. Plus their areas (according to their articles) are different: 760 vs. 1114 km², respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. This United Nations Human Settlements Programme Aden City Profile article clearly distinguishes between them: "Aden is the largest city of southern Yemen. It is also the administrative centre of the Aden governorate." Also this Berghof Foundation page: "[The Aden Governorate] is home to Yemen's main commercial port, Aden Port". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I've read both documents and did not find a single instance where they showed any difference between the city and the governorate. In fact, the UNHabitat document "Aden City" showed nothing but the governorate. Implying that they're the same thing. This is just like the Greenland article case where it is both about the adminstrative region and the Island itself (Btw thank you for that document, it will be helpful in expanding the Aden article) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? I gave you the exact quotes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend The UN quote is vague and the paper uses a map of the governorate when talking about the city and the Bergof foundation talks about the Aden port and not the Aden city... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN quote is vague? How? Is Aden the "administrative centre" of ... itself? Don't be deliberately obtuse. It is what it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we simply have to put the onus on you: Do you have sourcing that says the city of Aden is the same as the governorate? Not an "implication," a plain statement of fact. If so, supply. If not, then I think this discussion has run its course. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources are crummy (we have a claim that the Aden Governorate had a population of 589k in 2004 and 1.9M in 2011, and 3X growth in 7 years seems implausible). But it does seem clear that the Governorate encompasses but is distinct from the city itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above (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. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [13], and the other is a TechRadar article [14] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing NBOOK. Couldn't find any other potential sources. Even Higher and Beyond Frontiers should probably go too. Astaire (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Astaire above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion. I have WP:BEFOREd these and am unable to find sources to determine notability:

Even Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beyond Frontiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After a cursory search of coverage, it is pretty clear this book is extremely niche and has very, very little secondary coverage. There is one source that gives the book a mention [15] but that is essentially it. Any reviews of the book might help in establishing notability but otherwise essentially all of the article's sources are primary or local, which don't factor into its notability. It lacks the widespread and significant secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Comedy Guide (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)

Website lacks notability; significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Refs provided are either from subject's own coverage or mere mentions (related to comments made on BCG podcasts) – no significant coverage *about* the website from reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the content of the website has received awards and nominations and is often cited in reference books and other media. -Mushy Yank. 11:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any reference books or media that establish significant coverage. Unless and until Mushy Yank provides citations and quotations that demonstrate that significant coverage exists, their vote should be disregarded. Awards do not establish notability, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (web) Some of the awards are mentioned on the page. With references. And a simple Gbooks click allows to verify that what I wrote is true. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for an award is not sufficient for meeting WP: NWEB. It also isn't clear to me that a Bronze-level award establishes notability. Also, please remember that Google Books may show different results for different users. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in my search. I promise I'm not trying to be pedantic; I legitimately am unable to find any sources on Google Books that establish significant coverage. Please show us the sources you've found. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The podcasts that won the minor awards are dubiously notable themselves with limited independent coverage, let alone the website that hosts them. It's even unclear to me if this website even produced these podcasts or just syndicates them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

  Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

  • The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

  Sources
  1. "The arts online: Seeing the funny side". The Times. 2007-01-13. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 101 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Is the British sitcom on the slide or on the up? Whatever its condition, the many users of the British Sitcom Guide, launched in August 2003, can be relied upon for an opinion. However, there is no doubting the authority behind this guide to more than 200 British sitcoms, which aims “to provide a comprehensive guide to every UK sitcom ever made”. Its messageboard is a forum for ferocious debate over shows such as Are You Being Served? with John Inman (above) — apparently particularly loved in the US. News competitions and shop sections will sate the most slavish devotee’s needs."

  2. Dee, Johnny (2005-04-30). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview. Internet: * The British Sitcom Guide". The Guardian. ProQuest 246286725. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The review provides 103 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "There are some foolish folk who believe the best British TV revolves around women in corsets arranging plates of fondant fancies but one glance at this exhaustive website will inform them otherwise - the true heart of UK creativity is the humble sitcom. From Absolutely Fabulous to Yus My Dear every situation comedy ever gets its own page with episode guides, links and news - including the welcome information that Max & Paddy is returning for a second series. There's a good section on sitcoms in production - most star Rob Brydon - while gossip fans can feed their habit by signing up to a weekly newsletter."

  3. "Web Life". Birmingham Post. 2007-08-21. ProQuest 324189489. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

     The article provides 57 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk is of the opinion that the best British TV takes the form of the humble sitcom. The site features information on more than 200 homegrown series, with many more added to its annuls each month. From Absolutely Fabulous to Max and Paddy every sitcom ever made has its own page with episode guides, links and news."

  4. Hall, Julian (2006). The Rough Guide to British Cult Comedy. New York: Rough Guides. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-84353-618-5. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via Google Books.

     The book provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk: This guide to British sitcoms is reasonably comprehensive – it has over 800 sitcoms in its index – and is a useful resource for potential sitcom writers, with a good area devoted to the craft, complete with tips, courses and reviews of relevant books."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow British Comedy Guide (formerly known as British Sitcom Guide) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding these sources, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. These each look like "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which would not qualify for establishing notability under WP: NWEB. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those summaries are most certainly trivial mentions of the subject, not the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Quiet (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 video game; not reliable reviews, covering etc. Insillaciv (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Most sources are just reviews of the trailer, which isn't quite enough. Probably TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm one of the developers of Deadly Quiet, and I wanted to provide some clarification based on the discussion here. The game has received significant coverage from major publications like IGN, Vice, GameSpot, and Bloody Disgusting, AUTOMATION MEDIA, not as paid promotion, but as independent journalism. While Deadly Quiet is upcoming, it has already gained substantial industry recognition, being featured prominently across gaming media. Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize independent coverage, and the references cited meet that standard. Given the widespread media attention and player engagement, I believe the article meets notability criteria. I appreciate the discussion and respect Wikipedia's guidelines, but I hope this clarification helps in making a fair decision. Thanks for your time! Abuld Rafy (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you had linked and otherwise described mentioned coverage. In general, it is rare for games by unknown developers to receive sufficient coverage before release (see WP:TOOSOON). IgelRM (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Quiet has been independently covered by major gaming sites like IGN, GameSpot, Vice, and Bloody Disgusting, along with international outlets, confirming its notability. These sources are linked in the references. Additionally, we are not unknown developers, we are decently known across the indie horror scene. 93.66.97.220 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Largely in agreement with nom. A cursory search reveals very, very few sources such that it can be reasonably said that the widespread, independent secondary coverage required of WP:GNG is not met in this case (the game isn't out yet!). The article was created by a WP:SPA in February.  GuardianH  00:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Si Ri Panya International 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)

Not meeting WP:NSCHOOL; directories and primary self published sources Insillaciv (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion and believe Si Ri Panya International School meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. As the article’s creator, I’d like to address the concerns about sourcing and demonstrate the school’s notability.

The nominator states that the article relies on "directories and primary self-published sources." While some references, like the school’s website (ref #9), are primary and used for basic factual verification (e.g., facilities, tuition), the article also includes several independent, reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage beyond routine mentions:

- *The Thaiger* (ref #3) reported on the school’s 2019 accreditation as Koh Phangan’s first fully licensed international school, a milestone that sets it apart from other local institutions. This isn’t a directory listing but a news article discussing its impact on the island’s education landscape. - *Expat Life in Thailand* (ref #4) similarly covered the school’s opening and accreditation, offering context about its role in serving expatriate and local families, which goes beyond a mere announcement. - *WhichSchoolAdvisor* (ref #1 and #6) provides an in-depth review of the school’s curriculum, facilities, and fees, written by education experts, not the school itself. This is a detailed, independent analysis, not a directory or self-published source. - *Phanganist* (ref #2 and #5) features articles on the school’s leadership and 21st-century curriculum, written by a local news outlet, offering evaluative content rather than a simple listing.

These sources collectively demonstrate "significant coverage" in independent, secondary publications, addressing the school’s founding, accreditation, and educational approach—key criteria under WP:GNG. The school’s status as the first accredited international school on Koh Phangan (a notable achievement in a small, tourist-driven region) and its Eco-Schools Green Flag Award (ref #12, endorsed by WWF) further distinguish it from typical schools, warranting broader attention.

While directories like the International Schools Database (ref #14) or membership lists (e.g., ISAT, ref #11) are cited, they supplement—not replace—the secondary coverage, verifying the school’s affiliations and demographics. The Precious Plastic initiative (ref #13), a globally recognized program, also ties the school to a wider environmental movement, potentially meriting further coverage if editors can expand on it.

I acknowledge that some sourcing could be strengthened, and I’m actively seeking additional independent references (e.g., Thai newspapers like *Bangkok Post*, *The Nation Thailand*, or expat-focused media such as *Koh Samui Times*) to bolster the article. I’ve already begun this search and will update the article with any new findings during the AfD period, if allowed. However, the existing sources already establish notability beyond what a typical school directory provides. I’d welcome input from other editors to refine the article rather than delete it outright. Given its unique role and documented coverage, Si Ri Panya International School deserves a place on Wikipedia. Thafactfinder (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Article sources fail WP:SIRS. Only one source has a chance of passing, but not enough under WP:ORGCRIT. The article creator looks to have used an LLM for their argument.

Quick source review:

• WhichSchoolAdvisor - Directory, fails significant coverage. Looks to be a blog farm, failing reliable.
• Phanganist - Article written in cooperation with staff and in a promotional tone, fails independent and reliable.
• Expat Life in Thailand - Dead link. Archive here. Press release that shows contact information at bottom, fails independent.
• Nomad Mum - Fails reliable. Blog farm.
• Cambridge International - Directory of schools affiliated with this organization, fails significant and independent.
• WWF Eco-Schools - Directory of schools affiliated with this organization, fails significant and independent.
• Precious Plastic - Fails significant, directory.
• International Schools Directory.- Fails significant, directory.
• Vegan Magazine - Dead link. Archive here. Blog, fails reliable.
• PADI - Press release, fails independent.
• ThaiSuggest - Dead link. Archive here. Blog, fails reliable.
• TheThaiger - looks to be the best source on this list, having a large following. might fail reliability, but not from the local area.

Parksfan1955 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Besides the significant amount of promotional material in the article (and some formatting issues), a WP:SIRS check of the sources (as mentioned by a previous editor) disqualifies nearly all of sources (mostly exclusively local or otherwise primary) from factoring into notability. The one source found that might factor in notability is not enough to establish the widespread, independent secondary coverage required to establish notability.  GuardianH  00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Opposed To Pot (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 about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to show passage of WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH -- but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy coverage in real media shown at all, and claims absolutely nothing about the group that would be "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no evidence of significant coverage. Ligaturama (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I am the creator of the article and did add two notability sources to the article yesterday. I'm also still editing the article, adding relevant information, so would be grateful if you could wait for more feedback before coming to any decision. Horsechestnut (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately neither of these sources count towards the notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:NORG. An interview on a talk show is a primary and non-independent source, and dangerousminds.net is an unreliable blog (also the blog piece doesn't even cover the organization, just one of their publications). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A cursory search for sources reveals some (i.e., [16]) minor news mentions besides miscellaneous pages of the organization's website. Other than that, there is very little in terms of notability. Minor mentions here and there in some exclusively local sources are mostly this subject's coverage, which does not satisfy the widespread independent secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Miller (rabbi) (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)

Went through all the citations and the history of this article. It appears to have been started by the subject and all the citations are blogs written by the subject. This fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and borders on self-promotion by the subject SpeechFreedom (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Judaism, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Førre (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:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: accepting the draft was an error of judgement, the article would have benefitted from being developed there. Notability is a bit thin, but at least she did release her debut album since the last deletion discussion (which I started). Located within the article are three reviews or pieces about that album. Geschichte (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So... would you say "Draftify as an WP:ATD"? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google News search shows several other articles about her, which unfortunately are paywalled. They include "Kultur, Musikk | Signe Førre (27) får draumen sin oppfylt på noregsturné" (2022) in Avisa Hordaland; "Signe (27) vil ta vare på det vakre. – Det er litt vanskelig å sette meg i bås" (2021) in Bergens Tidende; "Elegant og tøft frå Signe Førre Trio" (2018) also in Avisa Hordaland; "– Eg hugsar då eg ringde familien og sa at eg fekk spela i Sogndal, det var fylt med mykje glede" (2023) in Sogn Avis; and others. With those already in the article, there is enough coverage to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That would all depend on if those paywalled articles pass a WP:SIRS check. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UMass Minutewomen cross country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect or merge with UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen until sufficient independent sourcing is found, as there is no inherent notability for college sports teams. JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is little coverage of the subject outside of the university's own primary sources or exclusively local sources — not too different from many other teams of similar universities. Since it doesn't satisfy the widespread and independent secondary coverage required for notability, largely agree with nom that a merge would be the best option here.  GuardianH  00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]