Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Shortcut WP:AFD/T
Purge

1 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 29 (Sat)      June 28 (Fri)      June 27 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Khwezi Khoza[edit]

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

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

As Khoza is playing at school level only, WP:YOUNGATH applies. The guideline itself states that It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. and that players like Khoza can only be notable if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. COSAFA is the only source that is close to decent but even that doesn't seem to address Khoza in significant detail. CAF Online doesn't seem to mention Khoza at all. I found SS Schools and Windhoek Observer but even these are just mentions in a school tournament recap, so not enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. This was moved to mainspace from Draft:Khwezi Khoza prematurely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Magnani[edit]

Marco Magnani (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 particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
  • Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [1] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [6] [7] [8]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [9][10] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [11] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Caraquet[edit]

History of Caraquet (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)

Historical nonsense moved disruptively to mainspace by a paid contributor first, and then by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya[edit]

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

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [12], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (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/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion (software)[edit]

Combustion (software) (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 seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT, old catalogue entry about discontinued software that was never important. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read[edit]

Nic Read (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 seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards[edit]

Stevie Awards (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)

Unnotable business awards (according to the article itself, "approximately 30-40% of entries receive an award"). A few newspaper articles, but otherwise it seems only recipients give a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Delete. "There are entry fees in seven of the Stevie Awards competitions, and winner fees in two. Entry fees for a Stevie in 2003 ranged from $200 to $400. As of 2023, entry fees range up to $600. There is an additional fee for attending the optional awards ceremony." This suggests to me that it is a money-making scheme. Athel cb (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Business. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q Trucks[edit]

Michael Q Trucks (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 yet notable WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. None of the sources cited mention him, apart from MusicBrainz and IMDb. The IMDB link says he's a "distant cousin" of Derek and Butch Trucks, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Couldn't find any coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Film roles so far are all minor. Draft:Michael Q. Trucks by article creator was speedy deleted as spam. Photo in infobox was uploaded by the (so far) single-purpose account Realtrueentertainment, unclear what the connection is. Borderline db-bio and db-spam: see also creator's user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Michigan. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

Live Art Development Agency (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)

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hifo[edit]

Roman Hifo (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 in-depth coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Mountain (ski area)[edit]

Monarch Mountain (ski area) (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)

Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems right. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame (2023). Skiing in Colorado. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4671-6055-1. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."

  2. Mait, Sandy (2021-01-11). "Monarch Mountain: One of Colorado's Best- Kept—and Snowy—Secrets". Ski. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."

  3. Scoville, Peter (January–February 2012). "Monarch Mountain". Skiing. EBSCOhost 70248700.

     The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."

     The review provides more information: "Average Snowfall: 350 inches. Skiable Acres: 800. Vertical Feet: 1,162. Advanced/Expert Terrain: 58%. Lift Ticket Price: $57."

  4. Osberger, Madeleine (2017-02-10). "Monarch Mountain Keeps it Real". Aspen Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."

  5. Blevins, Jason (2023-10-02). "Monarch Mountain plans new terrain as visitation, pass sales soar". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "

  6. Willard, Heather (2024-03-04). "Monarch Mountain's 377-acre expansion clears environmental assessment". KDVR. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."

  7. Boster, Seth (2019-12-16). "In 80th year, party rolls on at Monarch Ski Area". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."

  8. Harmon, Tracy (2014-12-21). "Monarch celebrates 75 happy holidays". The Pueblo Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."

  9. LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021). "Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

     The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."

  10. Hirschfeld, Cindy (2020-11-25). "7 Places Where the Slopes Are Less Skied". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-25. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)[edit]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player) (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 real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta[edit]

Operation Kahuta (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)

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [13] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lacks coverage from third party sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska[edit]

Magdalena Leska (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No coverage is here or elsewhere to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Torii[edit]

Hirofumi Torii (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletiion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks[edit]

Hayley Anne Sacks (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For the same reasons as the last AfD. This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, where Sack's achievements, two national silver medals, are recorded. Per CHEAP and ATD. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable enough based on the competitions she won, or did not win, having placed only silver in the Nationals, then 17th in the World Championships, then nothing more after that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She won twice silver medals in Israel. I wouldn't discount the huge efforts that go into that with "only" and "nothing more". A redirect is well deserved and as ATD and CHEAP usually takes precedence over delete. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold[edit]

Carl Faingold (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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile[edit]

Delight Mobile (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 bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

• Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost[edit]

TFhost (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 not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy[edit]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy (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 individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931)[edit]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (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)

Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [14] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 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 01:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article's one source (an obituary of the kind likely provided by the family to a local paper) claims he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants. A separate article in the Bristol Herald-Courier on his receipt of an award puts dates on it: "After he graduated from high school in 1949, he played baseball with the Bishop Stateliners, the Amonata Slugger and the West Virginia All-Stars from 1949 to 1951. Then he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro National League until he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953, where he also played shortstop for the 2nd Marine Division baseball team." However, this is not a possible sequence, since the Baltimore Elite Giants disbanded in 1950. So that casts doubt on the reliability of the source (and thus on the obituary) right there. I'm not finding any other sources that confer notability under WP:NSPORTS (either as a player or a coach), WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet[edit]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet (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 figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 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 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Novales[edit]

Michael Novales (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 figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Philippines, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The first two sources already in the article each contain multiple paragraphs of in depth, secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. WP:NSKATE does not need to be met when there is WP:SIGCOV present, as there is here. I'd encourage the nom to heed other guidelines besides NSKATE in their nomination statements as it pertains to figure skaters. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Keys: Rehearsal Room[edit]

Alicia Keys: Rehearsal Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Alicia Keys discography: all of the sources are self-published, unreliable platforms or stores. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boi's[edit]

Boi's (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:BAND. The author seems to be in a conflict of interest as well. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Lies & Therapy[edit]

Love, Lies & Therapy (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)

Found reviews from AllMusic and Classic Rock Italia which give me enough reason to not immediately BLAR, but not enough to be confident in notability. There are a few other publications that covered the release, but it didn't look like they were writing anything unique. I would redirect to Saliva (band). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if more sources can be added, and additional information can be added, such as a "Critical reception" section, prove the album is WP:N worthy. —Mjks28 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST argument. You have to find and provide the sources first, before voting to keep. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here Mjks28 but it does read that way. If you're saying that the article is keepable based on the sources I included in my nomination then please specify that, but otherwise I'm not sure of what use this comment is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that the article could be improved rather than deleted by adding more information and finding new sources. However, I have tried to find sources of notability, and other than a news article promoting the album's release, I couldn't find any evidence that the album is notable, so I now agree with redirect. Mjks28 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjks28 next time, please do your searching before you vote. Voting to keep based on the unconfirmed possibility of sources existing should be discouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Not finding significant and independent coverage in reliable sources. The album was released on June 10, 2016, and the article created June 14th. Because the article list the names of living people the criteria is far above "one source". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Otr500 are you opposed to redirecting to Saliva (band) as I put in my nomination? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to QuietHere: I would not be opposed, as a ATD, to a redirect. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, good to know. Just figured I should ask since you specifically voted for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [15], [16], [17], [18]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

• Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

  Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Dubuque[edit]

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

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

It seems unlikely that a company that owns radio stations in only one market — Dubuque, Iowa, of course — could possibly attain the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG, much less NCORP. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, inevitably, to Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. (If WP:Library points us to better coverage, I'll change my decision.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources (violates WP:OR) to prove subject is notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It might make more sense to merge and redirect KDTH to Radio Dubuque, since it is one of the 4 Radio Dubuque-owned stations. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would seem undue to me — not only is KDTH not even the only Radio Dubuque station, but it is much older than the Radio Dubuque company (which has only owned the station since 2000). Any notability here rests with the individual stations (the company does not inherit any from that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's good to know. Worth spending some time on the KDTH article as well then, to support with more/better citations. (Have come across newspaper articles in Newspapers.com referring to KDTH's longer history so think it should be straightforward.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any discussion on the proposed merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Added more coverage to the article. Leaning keep at the moment; still searching for more. At minimum, if we are to redirect, it would require a merge with the Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. Haven't added to either article yet, but there is coverage outside of the local newspaper that points out that Radio Dubuque is one of the few independents in an Iowa radio market dominated by Clear Channel Communications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]