Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Somali Police Force#Haramad Special Police Force.
Daniel (
talk) 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Haramad Special Police Force (
|
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 was just accepted via AfC (see
User_talk:Bkissin#Haramad_Special_Police_Force but Bkissin wasn't aware of
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdiaziizho/Archive. It is not technically a G5 although I read it as such, so bringing it here for more eyes. Would not object to a redirect to
Somali_Police_Force#Haramad_Special_Police_Force although that is unsourced. I don't know if any editors here who read Somali but please feel free to ping them here without a canvassing concern as there is literally nothing but the above and some mirrors in an English source search.
Star
Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Law,
Organizations,
Police, and
Somalia.
Star
Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete: Close enough to G5 for me. Frankly, we should put a note on a sock blocked's drafts so that they don't come up like this. Or delete them when blocking. -
UtherSRG
(talk) 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge/Redirect per nomination. Also to add on sockpuppet (re)creation by sockpuppets I'd leave the draft open to catch newer sockpuppets.--
A09|
(talk) 20:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Evan Roden (
|
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)
Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below.
Jfire (
talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.
- The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.
- The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.
- The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.
- The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.
- The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.
- The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.
- The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.
- The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar.
Evanroden1 (
talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Fails
WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not
independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject.
UtherSRG
(talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept.
GraziePrego (
talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources.
Contributor892z (
talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Mojo Hand (
talk) 23:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Gransito Movie Awards 2008 (
|
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)
Perpetually unreferenced article lacks coverage, fails
WP:GNG.
Οἶδα (
talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
I am also nominating the following related page because it lacks the same coverage:
-
Gransito Movie Awards 2007 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Awards-related deletion discussions.
Οἶδα (
talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Film,
Internet, and
Italy.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, as per
Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled).
Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The website was last up in 2009
[1], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)
[2], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus
it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it.
Οἶδα (
talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Mojo Hand (
talk) 23:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Killing of Dexter Reed (
|
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 event
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - This has been widely reported in reliable sources.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- "Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", per
WP:NOTNEWS.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Crime,
Events,
Police, and
Illinois.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. A brief burst of news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a database of murders or other news stories.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The surge of coverage occurred weeks after the event. There are sources that analyse the event as well. And there are still sources published as recently as
2 hours ago, definitely sustained coverage.
Wikiexplorationandhelping (
talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Red pilled media has been
all over this because the left has been asking the same stupid question: "how can police justify nearly 100 shots, when all Reed did was empty his clip at a cop first?" Both sides will milk this for a long time. (
Grady Judd said, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more".)
Magnolia677 (
talk) 23:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: many reliable sources and significant in-depth coverage
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Janaratna (
|
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 neologism. No evidence of any usage beyond a single conference presentation.
WP:BEFORE reveals no potential sources. Tagged for notability for a decade.
Jfire (
talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- Per nominator this is a newly invented term with no record of coverage or even usage outside the article now under discussion.
Central and Adams (
talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – Invented term with zero records anywhere.
Sgubaldo (
talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - No records found.
Grabup (
talk) 03:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired
PROD (a.k.a.
"soft deletion"). Editors can
request the article's undeletion.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Arshad Adnan (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or film producers. This was speedy deleted in March for not properly sourcing a strong notability claim, and was then recreated just over a week ago -- but the notability claim isn't stronger or better-sourced than the first time.
Two of the eight footnotes are just redundant reduplication of two of the others, so there are really only six distinct sources -- but four of them are just here to verify his family relationships to other notable people, rather than to demonstrate his notability, and of the just two sources that link him to film, one just briefly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense. Which leaves just one source that's actually contributing any
WP:GNG points, but that's not enough.
As always, neither actors nor film producers get automatic notability freebies just because their work exists -- and notability is
not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because of who his parents are, either -- but the article claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable at all, and isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Delete - Don’t think he is notable for now. Sources are just passing mentiones and not claiming notablity.
Grabup (
talk) 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 20:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Confused A search finds his name in some reliable sources. However, there are discussions about his
films or
dramas, rather than about him personally.
Ontor22 (
talk) 07:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Comment: He might meet Wikipedia's notability requirement under Socialite Category and Sustained Category.
Crampcomes (
talk) 00:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
List of National Geographic original programming as a sensible ATD.
Owen×
☎ 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Going Ape (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article was previously deleted after an expired
PROD. I could not find
significant coverage of this documentary in
reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The
New York Times
source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male."
The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to
National Geographic Channel might be appropriate.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example.
JohnMizuki (
talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Hi @
JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not
independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.One way to establish notability would be to provide the
three best sources that you can find.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Regarding new sources that have been added:
Broadway World is a NatGeo press release;
OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and
Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.I will also add that I conducted my
WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub.
X (
talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×
☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe.
Owen×
☎ 21:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Embassy of Guinea, London (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article contains no content other than location and former location of the embassy. Lacking any secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. Fails
WP:GNG.
AusLondonder (
talk) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Bilateral relations,
Organizations, and
United Kingdom.
AusLondonder (
talk) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- On a quick Google search I can't find anything useful, so perhaps this should not be standalone. Best
WP:ATD I can see is redirecting to
List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe. —
Kusma (
talk) 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect (NB this could have been done – or at least tried – without an AfD). I was going to suggest
Foreign relations of Guinea as a target, but the target suggested by
Kusma is probably better.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Africa-related deletion discussions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG.
LibStar (
talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect per Kusma. Not notable enough for an article, but a plausible search term.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 06:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
WiX (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article does not meet the criteria set out in
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:NSOFT. The majority of sources used are primary sources and therefore considered unreliable, such as the official website of Rob Mensching, the developer of WiX, wixtoolset.org, and Microsoft blogs directly related to the article's topic. The remaining sources are also unreliable blogs. There is a lack of acceptable sources in the article. While the topic may be important for Microsoft, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards without extensive and detailed coverage from authoritative sources that could help establish its notability.
Barseghian Lilia (
talk) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - there is a reason why WiX is notable within software history with being the first
open-source project developed by
Microsoft (diverging from their profit-centric closed source model), but similar to other installer technologies and like most technical niches, detailed coverage is unlikely to be found outside of the industry, especially with it being a Microsoft-centric tech. A large number of results are found on Google Scholar where it appears in a number of technical books
[3].
TubularWorld (
talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles, such as comments made by
User:Vlad on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallAnywhere. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of this WiX article it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden?
TubularWorld (
talk) 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for your observation, I've tried looking for this deletionist user, as far as I can remember I hadn't intersected with her anywhere else (for such vendetta / ulterior motives) and while from the login / name she's obviously Armenian, I really don't know why she wants all these technology articles deleted. With IA it finished finally with a redirect, so the history's not lost, but even I know WiX is more known than IA (InstallAnywhere). --
Vlad|
-> 10:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
TubularWorld also, an interesting fact is that she doesn't like versions history in such articles, sometimes these sections are important in terms of size of text, deleting this first would make the article smaller as it used to be, then more prone to be deleted. --
Vlad|
-> 10:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: There's secondary sources elsewhere including at least two dedicated books and coverage in other books, at least one web article. Just needs to be cleaned up so it isn't only cited to some guy's blog.
StreetcarEnjoyer
(talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: WikiPedia is highly referenced in Google, when searching for pretty much anything, the en.wiki article (if it exists) is returned in the first 10 results (if not the first 5). It's a pity to click to such a link only to discover it has been deleted and / or transformed into a redirect! --
Vlad|
-> 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Not a valid reason for keeping. If this were true, no articles would ever be deleted.
Industrial Insect
(talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: This obviously meets GNG.
X (
talk) 09:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit 23:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
True Britt (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article about the Autobiography of
Britt Ekland, while she herself is clearly notable - her autobiography fails
BOOKCRIT. Claim of being "best selling" is not held up. Contents of the article has no commentary on the book (sales figures, reviews etc) and just has a few quotes, with subjective inferences.
Current sources are the book itself and a broken link to blogspot. Only reviews I could find were on GoodReads and such (
NYT review about different book - happens to mention title in headline - that took me a while to figure out).
The book may or may not be a valuable source for the Britt Ekland article, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. --
D'n'B-
t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Likewise the nominator, the author is a notable writer or in related field, and so, her book should be a redirect prior to what we see happens in such cases on Wikipedia. There could be in the future detailed reference to the book. So, redirecting to the main author is the 'perfect' way to justify this deletion discussion.
Safari Scribe
Edits!
Talk! 08:37, 20 April 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) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The book was mentioned in the media, but mainly by conveying gossip, so the reliability and significance is questionable. For the same reason, I don't think it should be redirected.
Geschichte (
talk) 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to
WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 14:15, 14 April 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) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Stowmarket#Governance as a reasonable ATD.
Owen×
☎ 21:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Stowmarket Town Council (
|
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 secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article.
AusLondonder (
talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Organizations,
Politics, and
England.
AusLondonder (
talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify.
Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ----
D'n'B-
t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 13:28, 14 April 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) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement.
Rupples (
talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Owen×
☎ 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Georg Weissacher (
|
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)
Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. -
UtherSRG
(talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
People,
Fashion,
Austria, and
United Kingdom.
UtherSRG
(talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — reeks of self-promotion; prod declined, like on
Renzo Vitale, by a single-purpose sockpuppet, hopefully only delaying the inevitable deletion. —
Biruitorul
Talk 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete:
PROMO tional article.
Drowssap
SMM 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Delete – Agree 100% with what's already been stated
MaskedSinger (
talk) 06:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk) 18:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
List of Sporting Clube da Praia players (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people fails to meet the criteria defined by the
WP:NLIST.
Let'srun (
talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Lists of people and
Football.
Let'srun (
talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Sportspeople and
Africa.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The player base from most of the club's history is completely impossible to
verify, the list is utterly impossible to maintain and the vast majority of entries on the list would be amateur footballers that fail
WP:GNG individually. People that do meet GNG individually, and whose playing for SC Praia we have verified, can be collected in a category.
Geschichte (
talk) 08:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Giant
Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
Giant
Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – Per similar AfD (
CD Travadores players).
Svartner (
talk) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Redundant list filled with unsourced materials and non-notable players.
X (
talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit 12:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Sugiarto (
|
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)
Had a
brief career but mostly as a substitute and I can't find any
WP:SIGCOV at all in reliable sources.
Bola,
Viva and
Tribun News all confirm that he was a real footballer but none of these are instances of actual significant coverage, which is what is required. Indonesian football was well covered at the time but little was written about Sugiarto it seems.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Sportspeople,
Football, and
Indonesia.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone
(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
Giant
Snowman 14:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Very little to go on here. Clearly fails
WP:SIGCOV and even
WP:SPORTBASIC.
Anwegmann (
talk) 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – Even as an Indonesian person myself, I could only find other people with this surname than this soccer player, failing
WP:V.
CuteDolphin712 (
talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – Per above.
Svartner (
talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is against keeping. From among the ATD proposals, the redirect to the list of floods can't be implemented because the topic is not mentioned there, and the merger to the locality has little support.
Sandstein 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
2024 Clarkson floods (
|
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 event does not meet
WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a
lasting effect.
Steelkamp (
talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per
WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without
WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a
WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into
Clarkson, Western Australia.
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action.
Steelkamp (
talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Agree, I also oppose merge.
LibStar (
talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).
- Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for.
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --
DannyS712 (
talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. –
Tera
tix
₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant.
Steelkamp (
talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect And add to
Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.
12.11.109.231 (
talk) 10:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
William Clouston (
|
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 noted in
WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting.
Wikishovel (
talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Authors,
Politicians,
United Kingdom, and
England.
Wikishovel (
talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election.
Rupples (
talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over
WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗
plicit 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Sports broadcasting contracts in Latvia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to
WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - No merit under
WP:NLIST
BrigadierG (
talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Through the Dragon's Eye.
✗
plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes (
|
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)
Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (
example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. --
D'n'B-
t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge and redirect to parent article
Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the
Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the
WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion.
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Merge as outlined by
Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with
MOS:TVPLOT.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Three Phase Operation (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD |
edits since nomination)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces
blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as
Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories.
Zero
talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found
MarkiPoli (
talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name.
Marokwitz (
talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF.
gidonb (
talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
-
Reverse Engineering for Beginners (
|
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 meet either
WP:NBOOK or
WP:GNG. Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent sourcing has not been found. Prod tag was removed by the book's author, so here we are at AFD.
MrOllie (
talk) 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Literature,
Engineering, and
Computing.
WCQuidditch
☎
✎ 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. To my mind NBOOK and GNG are almost the same here: we need multiple reliable in-depth independent sources about the book, most likely published reviews. We don't have any and I couldn't find any. Even if we take a laxer view of NBOOK, the article's claim that this is "recommended by several universities" does not pass #4 (that is only for books that are, themselves, the object of study in courses at multiple schools, not for books used as textbooks of courses about something else). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete We're interested in whether secondary attention has been paid to the book, and that's not being shown.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: NBOOK and SIGCOV not met. 3 reviews condition also not fulfilled.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 04:14, 28 April 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.