Fails
WP:NMUSIC with no viable independent coverage. Subject has no notable discography or label work and no chart activity, and article sources are primary.
💥Casualty• Hop along. • 23:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Well, all four used in the article are RS, but the interview and the "listen to his music" don't help notability. The last two are trivial coverage and these are about all I can find, so not enough for musical notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article moved from draftspace, despite being declined twice when submitted for review. Subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines yet, and fails
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNG. Delete unless reliable sources are found and added to article.
CycloneYoristalk! 23:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in
news org sources that discuss the organization:
[1] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be
TOO SOON for this article to exist. I therefore propose deletion, or to possibly redirect somewhere if a plausible target is found.
CycloneYoristalk! 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
NCAA Division I Men's Indoor Track and Field Championships and do not draftify. Way
WP:TOOSOON for an article on an event which has no coverage outside of a single
WP:PRIMARY routine announcement of date and venue. This can easily be covered on the chart of championships listed in the proposed target article. I oppose a move to draft space because it is highly unlikely any significant coverage will be available until January 2026 at the earliest (the start of that year’s indoor track season), meaning there is no benefit to creating a draft at this time. FrankAnchor 00:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Frank Anchor. It is probably too early for the 2025 article; this one is definitely too soon. I could probably be convinced it is too soon for even a redirect.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete way too soon, and not mentioned at parent article, and so redirect is inappropriate. I also oppose moving to draft space, since it's about 21 months until the event and draft space is not an indefinite holding area.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 07:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding a mention at the parent article is an easily
WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. A section with future locations can be added after the list of past events. FrankAnchor 00:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The topic doesn't seem to match
WP:SPORTSEVENT. It clearly states that student competitions are not considered noteworthy, and the article itself about the sporting event should not be just a collection of statistics. When the event is held and something significant happens there, then maybe it will become an acceptable candidate for an article--
Saul McGill (
talk) 14:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The language, scope and tone of this article feels completely self-promotional. In an effort to conduct
wp:before, I uncovered minor articles that appear to be reprints of press releases in Newsday. If anything, a portion of the content from this article should be included in the large article on
Hofstra University. Otherwise, I recommend deletion.
Variety312 (
talk) 23:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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 conflictMohammad 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
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.
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.
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
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5].
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
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
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
Fails
WP:NMUSIC as individual artist. Connected purely to
Chopper City Boyz with no notable coverage or discography, and like
Freaky Tah, any ongoing coverage centers around his death more than his music. Redirect to Chopper City Boyz if not outright deletion.
💥Casualty• Hop along. • 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
An article from 2006 with only one source - a radio interview from 2003. There are no independent, third-party reliable sources cited. A
WP:BEFORE search is complicated because there is a commercial radio outlet with the same name which came later. There is a body of work on the general subject of pirate radio in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I could not find reliable sources for this particular station. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG and lacks
WP:SIGCOV,
Geoff | Who, me? 23:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: All kinds of hits for pirate radio all over the world, Japan, Australia, the UK, that come up with this search, but nothing about this particular incarnation of pirate radio.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Should note that as of the time I am writing this, the article appears to have zero sources. —
Mjks28 (
talk) 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as meets
WP:GNG with sources added to article. Insufficient
WP:BEFORE. Yes, Dutch newspaper archives are particularly difficult to access online without going to a physical library (preferably in the Netherlands), but online sources like
this and
this are accessible via Google (and if you look closely at some of the websites covering the King David, they include photographs of old newspaper clippings as well). Pinging
Oaktree b for reconsideration.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also found a whole section dedicated to Capital Radio on board the King David in
this book about pirate radio. There is enough coming up via Internet Archive, such that going through it will take more time than I have right now. This was a happy discovery so in the end, no harm done and the article can keep improving.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 05:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NMUSIC. Not notable enough for own article (no content therein outside of his death) with no individual discography or independent coverage. If not outright deletion, a redirect to
Lost Boyz will suffice.
💥Casualty• Hop along. • 22:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Lost Boyz: I don't see enough for Freaky Tah to have his own article. Redirect is fine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no
WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the
Heathrow Airport and
Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this).
Carguychris (
talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Bannertalk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and infrastructure?
gidonb (
talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus
WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article.
💥Casualty• Hop along. • 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per
WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By
Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a
WP:CASESTUDY.
gidonb (
talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete There is this:
[6], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no
WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion?
gidonb (
talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and
are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per
WP:PAGEDECIDE.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Many similar articles.
Akk7a (
talk) 04:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (
talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting
User_talk:PRISH123.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This
[7] is about all there is for the regiment. Not enough to keep the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from
before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see
BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at
Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure this satisfies notability, based on the sources that are already there and a google search.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the
project died decade ago. -
Altenmann>talk
Keep an inactive topic is not a valid deletion reason. The same logic could lead to deletion of all our history-related articles. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. -
Altenmann>talk 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find
[8], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements.
HyperAccelerated (
talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge into
WDNN-CD, as WDNN not only has the coverage to sustain continued existence on Wikipedia, but also the 2 actually seemed to have once simulcasted eachother and share common ownership. --
Danubeball (
talk) 19:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ordinarily, I'd do the suggested Merge but
WDNN-CD is being discussed at AFD, too, so it would be wise to see the outcome of that discussion first. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, actually. To my surprise, I’m already recovering some stuff about this station. I should be finished straightening up this article soon. Though if you want sources, why not? [1][2][3] For some reason, apparently the times mentioned one of their shows so
Danubeball (
talk) 19:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry.
WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research,
WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete.
4.37.252.50 (
talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a
WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators.
HyperAccelerated (
talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am okay with a redirect as an alternative to deletion.
HyperAccelerated (
talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!
"this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once.
HyperAccelerated (
talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
then why not nominate other school/colleges pages that has lesser sources, you are only targeting my pages
Juicy fruit146 (
talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page.
WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional.
4.37.252.50 (
talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge When searching around, I could not find anything special about this school except that it exists for 75+ years. Article is filled with run of the mill info over the school, based on related sources. Sources seem to be mostly social media. So deletion is the best option but a merge into the university is also an option. The Bannertalk 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to
Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus.
M S Hassan (
talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I would not redirect to
Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline.
RangersRus (
talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the English sourcing is borderline-sufficient for GNG, and there appears to be Hindi-language coverage as well. It might be better to merge with
Motu Patlu, but I'm not familiar enough to have an informed opinion.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 18:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
[1] Korfballers vechten hard voor hun club 'De Kapellen' wacht op plek in Schenkel-Oost. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 27-03-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024,
https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960497:mpeg21:p047
[2] Hans de Kwant: Door en doorgezond' 'De Bermen speelt korfbal met visie' Van onze medewerker ANDRé KOUWENHOVEN. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 11-09-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024,
https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960654:mpeg21:p031
[3] Timmers, Jan (4 December 2023). "
KCC/CK Kozijnen belandt in zwaar weer". Het Kontakt IJssel en Lekstreek. Kontakt Media Partners. Retrieved 18 June 2024.
The newer sources are not yet included in the national archives. Among the very recent news sources, the article by Jan Timmers stands out as it contains analysis. Note that the merger itself occurred in the coverage lull so we will need to do with these fine sources before and after.
gidonb (
talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Meantime, I have identified a fourth source that supports notability.
gidonb (
talk) 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The topic lacks significant coverage and fails GNG--
Saul McGill (
talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete no substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of
General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: There currently aren't enough sources in the article to cover
WP:NACTOR and I couldn't independently find sources to solve that.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as
WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. —
YoungForever(talk) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel a huge problem here is that there's no indication of this thing having any impact or importance outside of its base series or any enduring legacy of said concept. A good paragraph devoted to it is basically gameplay tweaks that mean nothing to anyone that hasn't played Gears, and doesn't provide any reasonable grounds to be a standalone article.
Kung Fu Man (
talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom and
WP:MERGEREASON. Better covered in the context of its respective game(s), in a much more efficient, condensed manner. Current article is bloated and drawn out to an insane degree. It would be very easy to cover most in a much more focused paragraph that didn't branch out into these tangents.
Sergecross73msg me 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Gears of War: per nom and I don't see a problem of
WP:WEIGHT by doing that, since this article is significantly smaller than the main one. I see no reason for this to be a standalone article.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge the Eurogamer article
here is quite impressive, unfortunately that appears to be the only major coverage for the gun, with the other articles being announcements of balance patches or minor coverage. I likely wouldn't have created this article if I had only these sources available so I will have to agree it fails
WP:GNG.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Perfect example of
WP:CFORK. Both
District Planning Committee and District planning in India discuss the same topic. In India, district planning is done by DPC which is set up as per the Constitution of India.
Gan Favourite (
talk) 17:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I added a full-length biographical profile as reference, so
WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is now fulfilled, which was the main concern of the nominator. Given the depth of this profile, it is likely a lot of coverage can be found in the sources (likely offline) of the years when he was active. @
XabqEfdg: did you perform a
WP:BEFORE?
Broc (
talk) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. All I got were database results and unrelated or unreliable results. I didn't find that article which certainly counts toward GNG. Thank you for finding it.
XabqEfdg (
talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not actually a separate organisation. MoRD recognised
Kudumbashree as a National Resource Organisation (NRO). Kudumbashree acts as a nodal agency for executing several schemes of central government in
Kerala. This is one among several of such. The article is a
content fork of Kudumbashree as it can be integrated within it and also fails
WP:SIZESPLIT as there is not enough size to justify article split.
Gan Favourite (
talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG with lack of coverage. A
content fork of
Kudumbashree, not enough size for an article split. GSLP is only one among several programmes of Kudumbashree and this one is lesser known than the others.
Gan Favourite (
talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As Eastman says, the articles imbued with the
Template:Special draft status aren't deleted after six months, but five years. I think that's pretty excessive in this case, so delete after seven days.
Geschichte (
talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Nemanja Markovic seems like a very common name, at least judging from the
multiple footballers bearing the name. (Some of them are also found as incoming links to this article. None of them seem particularly notable either.)
Geschichte (
talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't pass
WP:NJOURNALIST as it is. I couldn't find sources to change that.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 20:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Medium, Soundcloud and a few other websites that don't seem to relate to this individual. I'm not seeing notability with the sources given, nor can I find any we can use.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Tone is also highly promotional thanks to
this edit, which was when
User:Mytrum replaced this page with a promotional rewrite in 2022, which was also the user's only contribution. And hmm, I was thinking of something...
Aaron Liu (
talk) 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Well, it's all about Mr. Trump in the sources I find, whose name in Finnish sources appears as "Trumpia". Nothing about this software found. Source 6 doesn't even appear to be about the software, maybe a name drop. The rest of the sources used in the article are primary or of questionable notability. The Forbes piece is not notable/not a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think that this page is very short and needs to be expanded. There is actually a sufficient number of third-party sources regarding to this brand, such as:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jake Wartenberg (
talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So before nominating this article for deletion, I
consulted with
SouthernNights, who has expertise in evaluating academic-related BLPs. They also expressed doubts about the subject meeting our WP:N. I've also conducted a BEFORE search and found nothing that could help establish GNG. Fwiw, this is a PROMO BLP! —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
David Eppstein, This is awkward! . I must admit I only conducted a GNG check and consulted @
SouthernNights for WP:NPROF, who said it doesn't meet the WP:N, and then I proceed to nominate this BLP for deletion. But now you're claiming that it meets WP:NPROF. @
SouthernNights, Could I ask you for clarification on this, please. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs) 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Named professorship at Harvard: shortcut criterion to academic notability. No disrespect to Saqib who simply received incorrect advice in this case. --
Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 19:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. The page clearly needs a couple of edits to show it more clearly but as David says, this subject clearly meets
WP:NPROF in at least two categories; one is enough.
Qflib (
talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Biography of a person not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing
WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a
primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's
[12] and
[13] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Another obscure Trotskyist international, this one almost entirely associated with its founder
Michel Varga. The article cites
Robert J. Alexander's book twice: both of which are passing mentions, one in a section about the
International Committee of the Fourth International and another which refers to it simply as the "Varga Fourth International". Alexander himself says that the makeup of the organization was unclear and that little is known about the groups that were affiliated with it. A search on
Google Scholar yields only two results, one of which is a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, the other is a Czech PhD dissertation that only references it once in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.
[14] There's not much on its French name either.
[15]
As this organisation apparently has no
significant coverage in
reliable sources, and as Alexander seems to imply that its notability is inherited entirely from its founder, I recommend that this article be deleted.
Grnrchst (
talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - last time this was listed for deletion, Soman found a long list of French works which mention the international. Unfortunately there was no analysis of whether they were significant mentions, but from what I can tell it does seem to have significant coverage in Benjamin Stora's La dernière génération d'octobre, a shorter mention in Pierre Turpin's Le trotskysme aujourd'hui, and it appears in the index of the Dictionnaire de la politique française and so presumably in one of the volumes which isn't on Google Books. There are some other hits in books with no previews, but I reckon that's enough for an article.
Warofdreamstalk 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The lack of analysis was definitely an issue, because going through some of these now, it seems that most instances are only passing mentions and it appears there may have been false positives in others as well. Looking at Stora's book, the International League gets one single passing mention in a larger section about Varga, Turpin's book doesn't give much detail at all. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't coverage of this organisation, but I still doubt there is significant coverage. It seems that most of the mentions of International League occur when discussing Varga himself, there don't appear to be any that consider the organisation as an entity independently notable of its founder.
Of what I've seen in English and French sources, the information we could glean specifically on the organisation would never grow larger than a stub. --
Grnrchst (
talk) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no
significant coverage in
reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the
Revolutionary Workers League. A search on
Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.
[16]
Delete – Per nom.
Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (
talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international without any apparent
significant coverage in
reliable sources. This article has been tagged for multiple issues since 2010 and its only cited inline source is a simple list of abbreviations. Looking this organisation up on Google Scholar, I found only three results:
[17] one is a Czech thesis that lists it alongside many other Trotskyist internationals, without any further detail; the other two only give it a passing reference in sections about the Spanish far-left, without any real detail. It apparently only has one notable section, the Spanish
Internationalist Socialist Workers' Party, which has little information about it either. The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't help with finding sources, as it is almost entirely reliant on the FI-ICR's own newspaper La Verite.
With only one match in lower league as well as database sources listed, this article of a men's footballer obviously fails
WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage is
SME where he debuted for Senica. My other searches only came up with match reports and passing mentions.
⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It looks to be 6 matches in the highest domestic league, not 1 in a lower league, but still that's not really a career, and the lack of sources corresponds to that reality.
Geschichte (
talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article about a Brazilian singer covers the subject's early career as a child / teenage performer but not the later appearance as a contestant on
The Voice Brasil, performing by then as Lais Yasmin. Although this article instance is sourced only to primary social media, its basic details are
verifiable in
this 2018 online article associated with The Voice appearance. However I don't see the
evidence needed to meet the
WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria.
AllyD (
talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sourcing now in the article is social media or primary sources. I don't find anything about this person. Nothing for sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk) 11:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article.
TheNuggeteer (
talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for
WP:AUTHOR for me. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to
WP:GNG:
[26][27] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento[28]Broc (
talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Would it not make more sense to find consensus on ONE of these MOTU characters and handle the rest through merging, redirecting and/or prodding rather than spamming AfD with near-identical nominations?
BoomboxTestarossa (
talk) 09:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe Characters. This is the only option in my opinion.
Galaxybeing (
talk) 10:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious
WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And there is some more reception here as compared to the target, so a simple redirect would remove encyclopedic content.
Daranios (
talk) 11:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is a fairly substantial article with a number of secondary sources. A merge would be the obvious
WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And there is at least some content based on secondary sources here which can be used to improve the respective section of the target, so simple redirection would be a step backwards.
Daranios (
talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious
WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And there is at least a mimiumum of reception here as compared to the target, so a simple redirect would remove encyclopedic content.
Daranios (
talk) 11:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this.
BoomboxTestarossa (
talk) 10:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this.
BoomboxTestarossa (
talk) 10:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious
WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and there is at least a mimiumum of reception here which can improve the respective target section.
Daranios (
talk) 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is reasonable doubt that sufficient sources exist to demonstrate the subject's notability, per
WP:CORP. (Google's news search finds many hits)
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. As with the nom, my own
WP:BEFORE identified a relatively high number of (seemingly) independent/reliable news sources which deal with the subject org as a primary topic. And in some depth. The nom was, in my view, quite correct in dePROD-ing the article. And opening this AfD. Personally I cannot support deletion. The sources found in my own BEFORE,
a number of which I've added to the article, would suggest that
WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Certainly I can't support summary/procedural deletion...
Guliolopez (
talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello. I created this page myself. This was sometime after the 2019 LEs when I also created for Irish Local Elections across the years 1985-99 and for each City & County Council election of each and have added to others since and created additional ones including individual pages for several elected politicians, past and present and national and local level.
Devite (
talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The benefit of Wikipedia is that in some cases GAA personalities, actors, actresses, comedians and people who then become TDs, Senators and MEPs start out in their first election. The pages I helped create show links to all elections that the people stood in, if they become a significant national or international personality. You understand as a fellow editor. Its the fishing effect that we have in economics to add to the overall level of combined knowledge and this is why I like doing this. Its safe and quiet.
Devite (
talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Another section I found on the pages of each Council was a list of Councillors who were Cathaoirligh of each Local Authority. This has been done for each city such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast etc and I felt should be started for each County Council at least. I am happy to discuss this further. If you analyse the list of Coucillors of Monaghan County Council, McNally is also a former Cathaoirleach. Other former Cathaoirligh include some Ministers and TDs and then again some of those weren't Ministers or TDs but significant historical personalities in each county's political history regardless. Indeed some former Councillors are famous national figures despite never having been TDs such as Nicky Kelly from Arklow, profiled in Wicklow County Council Councillor history. That is part of my argument for keeping this McNally article as part of an overall database that could be enhanced. It is the 125th anniversary of Irish local government afterall this year in 2024.
Devite (
talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete no evidence of
WP:GNG and a local councillor does not have presumed notability per
WP:NPOL.
Broc (
talk) 09:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A former local councillor who does not meet
WP:NPOL.
Spleodrach (
talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL or
WP:SIGCOV. While I've found and added a few refs, which mention the subject as a primary topic, they are largely of the same type we might expect for any other (even long-standing) local councillor. The coverage of the subject's
planned and then
actual retirement, for example, is relatively light and only given in (very) local news sources. Can't advocate for a "keep" based on the available coverage.
Guliolopez (
talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Just a
WP:CONTENTFORK, No encyclopedic value. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Sports and
Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Vestrian24Bio (
TALK) 08:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:A10. The content is copied basically word-for-word from the main article on the 2024 World Cup. I do not think this is a plausible redirect title due to its length (and users looking for information on this round are more likely to look for the general World Cup article). There is no content needed to merge because content is already at the main article FrankAnchor 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no specific
WP:SIGCOV, and no in-depth coverage. There is routine coverage. Which clearly fails
WP:GNG. He is a common youtuber, just known for his controversial statements.
Youknowwhoistheman (
talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but
this and
this doesn't look like some ROTM coverage. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The sources provided by Saqib meet
WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets
WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed.
GrabUp -
Talk 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maxim Novoselov has never been ranked in the top ten, has never beaten a notable fighter (or one with a winning record for that matter), and hasn't fought for any notable promotions/events. Checking his Russian Wikipedia his biggest claims to fame are almost fighting Viacheslav Datsik, getting jailed twice, and setting up a small club in prison. The article is currently orphaned as well.
User:ZenZekey (
talk) 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It's hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of these sources. I'll admit to being skeptical about them, but I'm open to being convinced (which is why I didn't vote yet). According the FIAS, the world sambo organization, he's never competed at a world championship and the European sambo association's webpage only has results back to 2010 so I can't confirm his European title. Fightmatrix.com shows his highest MMA ranking was 110th, but he never fought another ranked fighter. He certainly appears to be a scary guy you wouldn't want to cross, but I'm not seeing anything that meets any WP SNG criteria. The question is whether or not he meets
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: It does not appear that {{
subst:afd2}} was ever applied here; I have fixed this. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch☎✎ 10:48, 24 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
[38], 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
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails
WP:NORG with no
WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are
WP:SPS and do not support
WP:GNG.
Longhornsg (
talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - insufficiently covered in reliable sources
Whizkin (
talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
NxcryptoMessage 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.
[39] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 08:43, 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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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, LizRead!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
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) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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, LizRead!Talk! 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't seem to find anything on this guy. He played in MLS for one year, made one appearance, and then totally disappeared. I've tried several searches, and nothing is coming up, much less
WP:SIGCOV or anything approaching
WP:GNG standards.
Anwegmann (
talk) 03:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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
Redirect per above argument, and per nom. No point having a disambiguation page that just redirects both uses to the same article. —
Mjks28 (
talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article lacks notoriety typical for an article. The sources have a vested interest in the subject, which itself is not compelling. Repeated death in committee should itself be evidence for the notoriety level.
Jasavina (
talk) 02:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Independent of the subjects intrinsic lack of stature, I have attempted to find non-vested sources on the topic and failed.
Jasavina (
talk) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll start a discussion concerning that other section on the relevant talk page.
As for these source you found, thank you, I genuinely went looking and didn't find those. I'll recall the proposal for deletion.
Jasavina (
talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTCRIT.
JTtheOG (
talk) 01:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of PlayStation games (A–L) - Official UK PlayStation Magazine reviewed the game in issue 98 per
this guide in issue 108 of every game reviewed in OPM up to that point, I was unable to find a copy of that issue to see how in-depth the review was and the guide only gives a score and brief summary. I was unable to find any other coverage on Archive.org.
Waxworker (
talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Waxworker. I did an extensive search on Newspapers.com, Both Naps Team (the game's developer website) and Phoenix Games website (the game's publisher) but ultimately found only this
[52]. It being a budget game might explain why there is almost nothing on it.
Timur9008 (
talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
[53] 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
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
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
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
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
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. PROD removed without explanation.
Bgsu98(Talk) 00:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Multiple searches didn't come up with any coverage to meet the
WP:GNG, but please ping me if there is any coverage unearthed. As it stands, all there is here in terms of sources are interviews and databases.
Let'srun (
talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the nominator mentioned a Google search; I expanded it with a search in the archives of
La Stampa and
Gazzetta dello Sport, openly accessible, as well as the
Corriere della Sera archive accessible via
WP:LIBRARY. No coverage found there either; if sources exist, they are extremely hard to find.
Broc (
talk) 06:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources suggesting this subject meets the
WP:GNG.
Let'srun (
talk) 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Article appears to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the book exists!
[54][55] and there are reviews
[56][57] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc♫talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentLogos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable.
Jclemens (
talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jclemens and @
Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the
Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc♫talk 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per
WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LEvalyn @
Jclemens Can you share a link to that discussion? I am operating off the WP:NBOOK policy, which does not address series.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dclemens1971 Sure, it's
here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require
WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
But each book having it's own article would be mad! Better to have them under one umbrella surely? — Iadmc♫talk 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the dearth of reviews I'm not sure how many are notable on their own anyway.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in
The Heythrop Journal and
Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from
Isis (journal),
New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable).
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (
Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.)
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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
_(16844722920).jpg){kind=icon}
Agree
Hammad (
talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)