User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

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× ☎ 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

stub about an unnotable sportsperson. apparently didn't even finish in the men's Marathon - T46 event. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to look into it. apparently didn't even finish in the men's marathon – I don't think this is a fair assessment of the athlete's accomplishments, because he won a silver medal in the T46 men's 5000 m at the same Games, and was 4th in the T46 800 m. When assessing a subject's accomplishments, we should always take their best achievements rather than their worst, as the subject clearly seems to be more of a middle distance specialist. Most importantly to P&G concerns, there is a book about the subject here: Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia: Paralympic Athletes of Tunisia, Farhat Chida, Abbes Saidi, Abderrahim Zhiou, Ali Ghribi, Mohamed Fouzai. ISBN 978-1-158-10041-5.. I tried to investigate if it was an AI / fill-in-the-blanks book by searching for other book titles of the same format, and I was not able to find any, so I think it is a legitimate book even though it says "Currently unavailable". Based on WP:NEXISTS, I am voting to keep. --Habst (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Please reconsider, retract and strike as you see fit. The Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia book is a reprint of Wikipedia articles. It is a print-on-demand based on Wikipedia's category of the same name. I can guarantee you this. During my years on this site I have seen a lot of these floating around. They are easily identifiable by their cover (and topic). Other giveaways are the lack of author and the length of a measly 22 pages. Searching for other book titles of the same format? I get results such as:

Paralympic Swimmers of Israel

Paralympic Competitors for Singapore: Paralympic Bronze Medalists for Singapore, Paralympic Equestrians of Singapore

Paralympic Competitors for the United States

Articles on Spain at the Paralympics, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Mexico : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Mexico, Paralympic Athletes of Mexico

Articles on Paralympic Competitors for China, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Switzerland : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Switzerland, Paralympic Athletes of Switzerland

• Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:Geschichte, thank you both for letting me know about Books LLC, I have struck the part of my comment about that. Then, we have to look for other coverage of the athlete.

I see two sentences of coverage beyond just listing race results here (it mentions when Fouzai surged in the race, not possible to glean this info from just online databases so it indicates some level of on-the-ground reporting or analysis was done): "Athletics Morning Session Review -- Repeat performances -- china.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. I wonder if there is a telecast of the race where an announcer may have prepared remarks about Fouzai, that seems like a good direction to go in from here. --Habst (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (Was typing this up as Geschichte replied): @Habst: Unfortunately that book is published by Books LLC per its Google result, which means that it is a reprint from Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Obviously, the What Links Here featured is the quickest way to check an athlete's accomplishments. Here, we can ascertain that he competed at the 2012 Paralympics as well, so no clear WP:ATD. Woefully short on WP:SIGCOV though. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Geschichte, I agree that is a helpful strategy, though on WP:ATD, I think there is a clear redirect target in Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's 5000 metres T46 because it is the only race in which the athlete won a medal, and it appears to be the race in which coverage mentions him the most, so it is thus his most significant race. --Habst (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• The china.org.cn source will be classified as WP:ROUTINE and nowhere near in-depth. It's two sentences... I'm sorry to to break it, but am just the messenger... Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Do we know his Arabic (I think that's what's spoken in Tunisia?) name? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: It is "محمد فوزي" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on that name, this looks to be an article primary about Fouzai as a leader of the Ministry of Youth And Sports, as a major decision-maker on Paralympic policy and naturalization of athletes: "مصر أولي بأبنائها.. وزارة الرياضة : نرفض تجنيس أبطالنا ونبحث عنهم فى كل مكان بالعالم". almasryalyoum.com (in Arabic). 28 August 2021. This article also extensively quotes Fouzai: "الشباب والرياضة: تقديم كل الدعم لمنتخب كرة القدم لقصار القامة في كأس العالم". www.albawabhnews.com. 2022-02-02. Retrieved 2024-02-18. Based on this new information, I am voting to keep as I think it is clear that sources exist, and these new positions should be added to the article. --Habst (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

He was not the leader of the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Egypt (or Tunisia), he (or someone with his name) was a spokesman for it. The actual minister is Ashraf Sobhy, who is clearly the person in the image of the "Minister of Youth and Sports" from the first article. It's not clear to me why a Tunisian would be serving as a ministry spokesperson in the government of Egypt, so I suspect this is a different person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Different person, as both arms are intact in the image of the spokesman in this article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the potential of more sourcing since his name in local script was identified fairly late in the window
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I have not seen any SIGCOV in IRS of this person under either his English or Arabic name. Being quoted in a news article has zero impact on notability, otherwise every single spokesperson for an org whose activities are reported in the media would be notable.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay, thanks for doing this research. Are you sure the caption about Fouzai being the depicted person is accurate, or if it just depicts another person at the conference in error? Because I noticed that same photo is used in an article about Ashraf Sobhi here, where Fouzai is only mentioned briefly at the bottom: [1]

I am careful with my wording to say that the subject is a leader, not the leader. Tunisia and Egypt are geographically close, so I think it is plausible that the subject would work for a sports federation as is common for professional sportspeople after their careers end. Also, what so you think about the WP:ATD of redirecting to his silver-medal-winning race article? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You can search the pictures of spokesperson Fouzai yourself. The search term is his name plus "spokesperson".

No it is not "plausible" that Egypt would hire, as a spokesman of the federal government, a citizen of a country 2000 km away. Minister Sobhi was spokesman Fouzai's doctoral supervisor, that's why he was hired. Don't you think that link, in which Fouzai explains his background on the subject and describes what his thesis says about Olympic tournaments, would maybe mention that he had competed in the Paralympics? JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't think you meant to search for "محمد ٠وزي" "المتحدث Ø¨Ø§Ø%. ltbdl (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre error...not sure how that got turned into gibberish (or how that gibberish still seemed to generate results?!), but if this still doesn't work then you can just search "المتحدث باسم" "محمد فوزي" in images. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Being quoted or interviewed doesn't help notability here and the discussion above doesn't sway me towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: No coverage for this person found. Even in French sources, it only hits on soccer players. What's given now for sourcing are database listings. Non-notable athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Antigua and Barbuda. Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda with the history intact so that sourced information can be merged if desired. There is no need to cover these details in two articles rather than one. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how this situation is different from any other list of capitals of country subdivisions. CROIX^talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIX^talk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

    Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

As far as I can tell it never went on sale Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, but consider a small merge to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as a possible search term Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully for more participation. But this article can't be Merged to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as that is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete It seems that the 2012 press release (which appeared in numerous Indian papers) was the only time that this vehicle has ever appeared. The use of the vehicles at Pragati Maidan did happen until at least 2015 but Mahindra never issued another press release on the subject. Its described as a concept vehicle on the Hydrogen vehicle page. MNewnham (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Appears that the prototype got some coverage but nothing more than that. I'm not opposed to a minor merge/redirect to Mahindra and Mahindra either but that doesn't seem to be necessary as most companies go through multiple prototypes before selecting a product. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: A prototype, promotional coverage in few blogs not news papers. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  We can add it by adding inline citations and original source from the NGCP Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx NGCP is not an independent source, right? We need more sources that are unrelated to the subject. NGCP is the operator of the transmission line itself, and its website is already non-independent of the subject itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'am not owned this article, @Ervin111899 currently owned this article and I also add some of the missing information, adding some correct citations etc. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx note I mentioned you since you responded here and I need to get your attention in my response. Also, take note that no user can own a Wikipedia article, per WP:OWN, as Wikipedia articles are collaborative works.

  Any way, the pre-COVID pandemic era article of the same transmission line – that got deleted – was also created by Ervin111899. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  What happened about the article was created in 2019 before pandemic Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @JWilz12345, what happened to the same article "Hermosa–Balintawak Transmission Line" since pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Is something wrong about the citations or lacking information. Since @Ervin111899 was after indefinitly blocked, due to abusing multiple accounts, he/him/their/they created the second article named Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line but ended up as another deletion that mentions the article has lack of citations, external links or it can be lack of information in power transmission operators NAPOCOR, Transco, and NGCP. Their documents is privately secured and the inaacurate infos is in the said article. So thats why you have to nominate in the said article and possible deletion of @Ervin111899 as the articles not to be supposed by the viewers and even breaking the NGCP's property. Thanks a lot! -- Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx read this. You seem to haven't visited the link I inserted at "was deleted" at the nomination paragraph above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I visited twice. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.

  Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

List of traditional regions of Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a fork of Regions of Slovakia. Difficult to source, unlike, e.g., Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion lacked specificity, it's not evident from the deletion nomination that BEFORE was done, and "looks notable to me" comments are not useful in any way, shape or form, I can't tell whether the article was even read. I don't find most of the comments in the AFD persuasive. Maybe a return trip to AFD in six months would be warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Does not seem to clear notability requirements as an academic or businessman. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shaws username . talk . 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Engineering, Arizona, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe he does meet notability requirements. He is the research director at the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars at the Biosphere 2, affiliated with the University of Arizona. He is also the lead developer of SIMOC an interactive simulator built on NASA data that is on the National Geographic's website. At a NASA Human Research Program conference this year, NASA researchers even know him. Additionally, a number of recent technical papers in peer reviewed journals related to life support systems include him as an author and sometimes as a senior author. I can help update his webpage in the next month or so. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you point to specific coverage per our general notability guideline, or better, our notability guideline for academics? Remsense诉 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep - from a spaceflight perspective there is sufficient notability here: https://biosphere2.org/about/leadership-directory (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Delete Reviewing the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Staas appears to have undertaken considerable research but does not pass the threshold for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Being recognized by NASA researchers also does not constitute "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I recognize that there could be documentation of notability that is missing. Additionally, I am concerned by the fact that the original author of this article was paid by Staas to write it and, after COI issues were explained to the author, the page was edited by Staats himself. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seem to be ongoing challenges to quality. Vegantics (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Vegantics, Soft Deletion is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article. Or if the article has been subject to a PROD or prior AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have included his position as Research Director, developer of SIMOC a web interface simulator listed under Nat Geo for modeling life support systems. I have also listed a couple of publications for research he has done in modeling life support systems. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I added content related to Staats' position as research director and current work being done on modeling life support systems. These are verifiable on a university website and by publications, respectively, but these were deleted. Why? Spacesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Looks notable to me. Sufficient sources that meets GNG. Mevoelo (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. ✗plicit 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Suchodolina. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we think of any redirect targets? Such terms can be searchable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussion and multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I couldn't find enough information about this person from reliable sources. There's not much evidence showing they played a major role in the movies listed. I tried redirecting their page to a film they directed called "Shefeekkinte Santhosham," but it was reverted by the author. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources or meet the criteria for being recognized as an actor or filmmaker. So, it should be deleted or simply redirect it to the film they directed. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The sources were relisted that up to four articles (news sources) were used for citing the page. I wouldn't add a vote now but I needs a bit rewriting since there was a little move of notability. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Otuọcha: The sources added by the author are nothing but reference bombing. None of the newly cited sources support whether the subject of this AfD has played a major role in the films listed in the article, so they don't meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the sources just briefly mention the subject, and the reliability of some is questionable. None of them really discuss the subject in depth, so they fail to meet the general notability guideline as well.GSS ^💬 14:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nominator. Fails WP: NACTOR. The sources seems still remain questionable and barely not independent of the subject. The references were sort of mere mention and provides no stand of notability. Hence, fails WP: GNG, WP: NACTOR, a little of WP: CREATIVE. Otuọcha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep : He passes the 3rd criteria of Notability which says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " . He is the Director & Writer and also an actor of the feature film Shefeekkinte Santhosham . It is a well known movie and have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews in major newspapers. In addition this criteria passes for his television series Gulumaal for which he is the host and program producer. It has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles. Thus clearly passes notability. Additionally he is also an actor acted in 3 other movies for which references has been added as well. Passes WP:GNG Mischellemougly (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mischellemougly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

  Filmmakers who have only directed or produced one film may fall under WP:BLP1E, which is why I redirected the article to his film. Regarding Anup Pandalam, he has garnered media attention solely for his directorial debut, with no evidence supporting a major acting role in the films listed. Additionally, it remains unclear how he meets the criteria of GNG when there is no significant coverage of him in any source. Furthermore, the Gulumaal is not a notable TV show as required by Wikipedia policies, and the roles of host and program producer are not considered major roles in such productions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) updated 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film Shefeekkinte Santhosham in 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, a film is not an event).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Has couple of well notable films. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR.

Rydex64 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Consensus eventually formed that sufficient sourcing exists to support an article on this topic. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.

The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: People from the museum wrote a few blog posts for the Bank of England, that's about all the coverage I could find. One podcast in FEAST magazine. Just not enough to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the blog posts were to accompany an exhibition by Museumand held at the Bank of England Museum: see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/whats-on/pardner-hand. PamD 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• It appears that this has only recently acquired the name "Museumand", so it will be necessary to look through the sources found by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:

  1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.

  2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).

  3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.

  4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.

  6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

  7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.

  8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

  9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.

  10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.

  11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.

  12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.

  13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.

  14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.

  15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.

  16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.

  17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.

  18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).

  19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.

  20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).

  21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.

  22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).

  As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.

  No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Emmentalist, no it is relevant irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, let me re-word this as:

  Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.

  PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company^[1] which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo

I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".

Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).

Best wishes, anyway!

Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not call this a COI @PamD.

@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.

I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• keep per rationale by User:Tacyarg above references meet WP:THREE. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I see reliable sourcing on the page sufficient to meet GNG. The name change does make the search more challenging. I'm quite confused by the non-standard sectioning in this formal process. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - wow, this has turned into a mess, so I'll take my rational back to basics: I count WP:THREE so we can establish N; the rest of the nomination is outside the scope of AfD (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and not needed in a keep decision. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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!} 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very few independent sources on the page - agree with the hatnote that these are insufficient to meet the GNG. I don't see much else which could be added. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(weak) Keep I added some main investigations fulfilled by the institute. Looking at scholar.google, it looks like a notable institute with 382- 395 hits. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The article you are pointing to, are not articles discussing the specific institute.Cinadon36 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn;t do an extensive "WP:BEFORE", but what I see it seems to be notable; and I can't read Chinese. Because of that my (weak) Keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 82.174.61.58 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation from AFD regulars here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I see nothing applied or presented which puts this article past GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. A reasonable search is handicapped by all the coverage of James D. Watson. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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!} 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not addressing any of the content since 2012, but the version of the page that stood for half a decade before that, Special:Permalink/130728486, definitely seems acceptable and not deletion-worthy. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it should be returned to being a redirect per WP:PLURAL if there is a consensus this should be deleted and if desired the edit history of the band deleted but if there is a consensus this should be kept or a lack of consensus it should be moved to Shores (band). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep, This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--Panther999 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS. 2 is a video, 7 seems to link to a 404 page, rest is trivial coverage. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've fixed the link on 7. But I tend to agree that it doesn't look like it qualifies for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there support for Redirection and, if so, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is some ip editor's vanity project (created inside a redirect) and I agree the sourcing is inadequate. No Idea Records seems to contain a list of similar bands, if a redirect is preferred. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Common Shiner (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more and better coverage than this, and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2016 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Not seeing enough significant coverage to pass notability guidelines. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources available are insufficient for a standalone article. Ping me if more sources are found. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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 HiT TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Show does not seem to be notable based on Google search. Only source in article is an interview with the winner. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Vietnamese Wikipedia has been article of delete and the results was delete. Mohammed07102007 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to HiT TV as an alternative to deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Another AFD closed as No consensus due to low participation. My suggestion to the nominator is to try again in six months. Maybe by then we'll have more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It does not satisfy any of the subsections of WP:COVERAGE, nor WP:GEOSCOPE, and is very borderline on WP:LASTING.

In addition, the citations used or otherwise available are exclusively WP:PRIMARY; this contravenes the WP:NOR policy, which prohibits “bas[ing] an entire article on primary sources". Newspaper sources published the same day of the events described are indisputably primary—see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS for the reasoning.

In conclusion, the article is in contravention of an editing policy and a notability guideline, so any keep votes will need to address that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: An WP:ATD should be considered, outright deletion would be inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can I ask why Curbon7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ATDs should always be sought out if one is available. For instance, election results for national offices is something that is always going to meet the criteria for inclusion, whether as a standalone article or in a collection list (see WP:NOPAGE). In this case, I see this election is listed at List of special elections in the Philippines#Philippine Legislature (without numerical results), so that can be a valid target for redirection if this article is deemed not sufficiently notable as a standalone page. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. In that case, I support redirecting to that section too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as redirect but have reopened and relisted for further input following a request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Request. I'm the creator of the article, and I've purposely declined myself from commenting. WP:AFD and Wikipedia itself seems to have ever-so declining numbers of volunteers as evidenced by this discussion. As no one cares to comment about this, and I don't think relisting this would work, if ever WP:CONSENSUS is to remove this from mainspace, I'd request for it to be draftified, then delete the link as if it shows up as a redlink. Ergo, no redirects, but the content is saved somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have some opinions for Redirection and an editor advocating Draftification. No consensus has been reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This person does not have many citations and is only known for allegations of sexual misconduct. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Christianity. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment well not quite. He was the primate of the Anglican Church in America until his resignation in 1995. Additional sources: [2][3]--Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment Does that mean he was closer to "good mates with the Archbishop of Canterbury" than "some vicar in a church"? MNewnham (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, quite the opposite, given the Anglican Church in America is a splinter church that isn't part of the Anglican Communion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Episcopal bishops, like Catholic ones, almost always have enough sources for notability (though sometimes the sources are offline), and this one seems if anything particularly notable.— Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Moriwen: That is the case with bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and other Episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion. However, I have just corrected the article to reflect the fact that the subject is not an ECUSA bishop but is rather part of a Continuing Anglican denomination. Unlike bishops of the Anglican Communion, bishops of obscure splinter denominations cannot be assumed to be notable. Graham (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:Keep per reasoning by @Moriwen and @Jahaza. Ominateu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion over a possible Merge or Redirect can happen on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Armenian Church Youth Organization of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It exists , but I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:OG / WP:GNG. I considered a merge/redirect to Armenian Americans as the only real WP:ATD, but wasn't convinced this was appropriate in that article. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This looks like a barely notable youth organization. I'm seeing some reliable source, independent reporting on the body from a variety of local sources. There's also extended coverage from Armenian-American-interest news orgs like the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Not enough for me to firmly !vote keep, but I'll dig deeper if I have the time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Pbritti: Would you mind providing these sources? QuicoleJR (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and improve: Per above comment- there is hope for the article. Archives908 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Failing to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Simply asserting sources exist is not sufficient. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep found some coverage here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep — I think the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator articles just push it over the edge to notability. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I am on the fence as to whether the sourcing is sufficient to support an article but it is certainly enough to support a redirect to Armenian Apostolic Church rather than a straight delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Pomona, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article claims the community formed in 1885, and was renamed in 1908. Consistently there are no newspaper articles about Pomona the community in the 1890s. During the 1900's when the Yakima county grange movement is getting going there is one mention of Pomona station, and couple in regard to Pomona grange district. Most mentions through 1910 are of Pomona Heights, and Pomona pumps. More than a few for Pomona Kansas, and Pomona, CA.

After 1910, references to a local place referred to simply as Pomona begin to appear, but are non specific as to it's nature. In 1912 and article appears that shows it to be a farming district. (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald/52082371/) Same as it was in 1909 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-as-a-district-and-gran/141165563/). Going forward the mentions become all about Pomona grange district. If this was ever a community there is no evidence of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The Washington Historical Quarterly specifically describes it as a station, not a town: [4]. All other mentions found were passing. There is currently a Pomona Road and a Pomona View trailer park in the area, but no "community" evident. I lived in the area for a while and never heard anyone refer to Pomona as a place, FWIW. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question - @James.folsom:, your original prod indicated East Selah and Pamona are same place so I deprodded and suggested this should be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington that was already in progress. Do we no longer believe this is the case? ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  One of the Wikipedia articles said Selah and Pamona was the same. The newspaper article said East Seleh and Pomona were the same. That is the only evidence of them being the same thing. Mostly I don't know how to combine them, and I didn't see why it mattered. So I didn't bother to figure it out. If somebody wants to do it's fine with me, but I just don't understand why it matters. James.folsom (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  It matters because if they are the same and the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington is keep, we should merge or redirect Pomona, Washington to East Selah, Washington. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  So how do we get them merged? James.folsom (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is a mostly manual process. See WP:MERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was going through the census records to run down the validity of SportingFlyers sources for East Selah. The Census maps have Pomona separate from East Selah. The Wikipedia article claims Pomona grew up around the train station that was named Selah, and later renamed Pomona, while the newspaper said Pomona station used to be known as East Selah station. I think that the east Selah train station was renamed Pomona, and that the rural areas around the station were referred to through the association with the station. I've found no evidence that a town existed. The 19th century areas of East Selah and Pomona are however clearly different from the 20th century areas that share these names. So are they the same, probably yes and no depending on if your talking about today or the 19th century. In the the 19th century they were train stations, in the 20th they are rural areas that echo the names of old stations. So I don't think it matters whether they were AFD together or not. James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a proposal to Merge or Redirect this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Safest would be keep due to lack of consensus. Merge to East Selah, Washington is also acceptable since that looks like it will survive its AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The East Selah in that article is unrelated to the East Selah Train that was renamed to Pomona. James.folsom (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State (1944) on p. 465 notes the railroad station, the population of 37, and that it was named after the Roman goddess of fruit. This is not the same community as East Selah - it obviously pre-dates the freeway but appears to be the other side. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your source is not readily available, if you know of a digital source for it let us know. What I know about that source is that it was published by the WPA from information collected in the 1930s. Therefore, I have checked every US census from before Washington was a state until 1950. The US Census never recorded anyone living in a place called Pomona. Without being able to examine your source, I put forward that the US Census is a more reliable source about where people live. James.folsom (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  The source is on Google Books. You're dismissing a source because you haven't seen it, which is ridiculous - it was written by the US Government. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  No because I hadn't seen it, and because it contradicts a much more reliable source. James.folsom (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Ahh, got a good link to the book "Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State" its the 1941 printing -->https://www.google.com/books/edition/Washington/I-okAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Pomona This is the only good source I've seen that talks about Pomona the place. The section of the book that mentions Pomona is a collection of driving tours. The author was basically driving along Washington State roads and describing what he saw along the way. This stretch with Pomona begins on pg 263, and Pomona is 50 miles into the tour on pg 465. I read a little of the book, and its clear the author is just assuming that every train station that he sees is a town. No explanation of how the author comes up with the population numbers. Probably just by chatting with people he met there. Regardless the US census is a more reliable source for what places existed, and this place is not on any of those.James.folsom (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm satisfied by presented secondary sources this was once a small populated place and so meets GNG and GEOLAND. There's a fair amount of presentism in the nomination and comments; for example, the nominator's admitted original synthesis of contemporary US Census information (a primary source) demonstrates a misunderstanding of how rural (often migrant) communities clustered during that era. For the record, offline sources may certainly be utilized, and in this case might be required. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  There haven't been any secondary sources presented yet. That book is a primary because it's written as the author experienced it, and the mention of Pomona is in passing so it's not even significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Shaadi Ke Siyape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Pud Brown. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

West Craft Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

(proceduarlly declined PROD) Label so obscure its Discogs page has two attributed releases. I strongly disagree with the previous de-prod rationale that offline sources may exist; nothing indicating that popped up on newspapers.com or the Google news archive. Moreover, many, many short-lived jazz labels came up in the late 40s and early 50s, too many for the music press to cover all of them, and the ability for one of them to sign one or two notable musicians for possibly less than a year does not indicate that coverage is likely to exist. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pud Brown, I'm guessing these are self-released by him. Probably covered by jazzfan magazines of the time, but I doubt coverage would be of the label, it would be of the releases, which really isn't independent of the artist. If sources for these releases can be found they can be added to the artist's article, and should coverage of the label somehow be found there's nothing lost (that would have to be re-built) by redirecting except "sky is blue" prose. I'm normally loathe to have coverage of 78rpm labels removed, because truly most of the available coverage has not been digitized, but the nom has it right on this one. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Egyptian Armaments Authority. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Armed Forces Arming Authority (Egypt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

There's a better article of this: Egyptian Armaments Authority. 18Carlox32 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Egypt. Shaws username . talk . 15:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator blanked this article and replaced it with a link to Egyptian Armaments Authority, which the nominator had created immediately beforehand--I have restored the deletions. --Finngall ^talk 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Egyptian Armaments Authority, as the arabic name mentioned is the direct translation of the topic. While the topic has multiple GNG sources, it is better to be covered in that article. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate here even though none of the previous AFDs look like they were about this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable band that only lasted one year. No sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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 South Korea–Uruguay relations. as I don't think a third relisting will clarify the situation. And if non-English sources can't be used to establish SIGCOV, I'd like to see where that is mentioned in policy. I think there would be significant pushback as I'm guessing the majority of editors here have a facility in additional languages besides English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This intersecting ethnicity has some sources, but at 130 people I just don't see the notability beyond trivial information, i.e. most capitals probably have a Korean restaurant. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge to South Korea–Uruguay relations. Side note, but I made a solid effort to find WP:SIGCOV in the Korean language about the Korean population in Uruguay and struggled to do so. Some of the Spanish-language refs on the article are actually pretty substantial discussions of the population. toobigtokale (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete or merge Officially, SIGCOV has to be in English. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a different understanding; WP:SIGCOV seems to say Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. There's also this essay WP:SBEXTERNAL that I agree with. If sigcov really excluded non-English sources, I'd push back hard against the policy, and I think I wouldn't be alone. Most of my writing would get deleted overnight, and I'd like to think some of the things I cover that are only covered in Korean are interesting and important. toobigtokale (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

See also B7 of WP:BEFORE. toobigtokale (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I've made the same mistake. These non-English articles can be translated. Conyo14 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comments - I see some issues, but are they irredeemable? Bearian (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  The article itself is ok enough, the issue is WP:NOTABILITY. toobigtokale (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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 draftify‎. Consensus to move to draftspace for further improvement. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Lacks secondary sources; a WP:BEFORE suggests there is unfortunately not really any coverage on this game to justify an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Haunted PS1 games, has no apparent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't suggest turning the article into a redirect. A redirect would be messy to clean up and shift back to an independent article when the game is ultimately released and more sources become available/the topic becomes less obscure. Deletion would be better. Ishiura (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming it actually becomes notable, the redirect would provide grounds to expand the article. I don't see how that's a bad thing. (If it's not, that sort of disruptive editing can probably be handled on a user by user basis). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that my having created the article to begin with was disruptive? My reasoning for prefering deletion to a redirect is concern that a technical request would have to be placed in order to deal with the screwy edit history once it was time to set up the standalone article again. If the "Blast Cats"--->"List of Haunted PS1 games" redirect could simply be edited back into a full Blast Cats article once the game gets greater publicity, I would agree that a redirect is the best course to take. Ishiura (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  What you may be looking for is advocating for a draftify, if you feel there are good grounds for the article to obtain notability in future as a WP:TOOSOON. I created most of these articles, but admit most of the recent HPS1 games haven't really reached a stage of notability upon full release. But there's definitely no harm in exploring AtDs. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Draftifying is a great idea, but it's unlikely any substantial secondary sources will appear within the 6-month time limit. I'll move the contents of the present Blast Cats article to my userpage sandbox (User:Ishiura/sandbox) Ishiura (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. Yeah, sadly I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I really appreciate you setting up an article for one of the upcoming HPS1 games though, and hopefully if/when it gets reviews it can come back into the mainspace. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify per discussion above. Ishiura has already moved this to their sandbox and this discussion should be closed. Nomader (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more clearer consensus for draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify: Per discussion above. The game hasn't released yet so it's possible it'll get some reviews or coverage within the timeframe. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

M1NT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much in terms of refs on the page, nothing much other than run-of-the-mill opening/closing announcements found JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and England. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Some coverage, mostly PR bits. I don't think closing an outlet in Shanghai makes them notable. The last AfD a dozen years ago doesn't seem to make sense now... Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "A-listers club together to make a mint". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-11-13. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "Investors include Steve Coogan, the comedian, Mark Blundell, the Formula 1 driver, Ilaria Bulgari, scion of the fashion empire, Robin Saunders, the banker, Sebastian Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, and nine of London's 44 resident billionaires. The net worth of individuals on the share register is a whopping £38bn. Non-shareholding members include Val Kilmer, Liz Hurley, the actors, Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen, the cricketers, Bruce Buck, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, Laura Parker Bowles, the step-daughter of Prince Charles, and David Reid, the chairman of Tesco. Most are keen to invest. Prince William has also reportedly expressed an interest in investing although his exact status is a well-kept secret. And Lachlan and James Murdoch, the sons of media tycoon Rupert, are known to have made several bookings at the club."

  2. He, Min 何敏 (2008-11-12). "异想天开的富豪俱乐部" [The whimsical rich club]. 名牌 [Mangazine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via Sina Corporation.

     This is an extensive profile of M1NT. The article notes: "这就是香港的M1NT俱乐部，推门进去便是高达九米的、由施华洛世奇水晶制成的枝形吊灯，如一束光的瀑布倾泄而下，昂贵的艺术品装饰了墙壁和玄关，恰到好处的Jazz，身价不菲的香槟和烈酒，还有精致美貌的女子婆娑其间……M1NT的夜晚是香港社交圈的缩影，李泽楷、霍启山、万宝宝等人都是M1NT香港的股东及会员，在M1NT开幕的时候曾经亲临现场，并且出手阔绰。显然，M1NT的“投资式富豪俱乐部”的理念更能吸引年轻的“富二代”，以李泽楷为代表的香港及大陆的名门巨贾都喜欢来这个外表低调、内里奢华，同时又能表达自己的主人身份的俱乐部。"

     From Google Translate: "This is the M1NT club in Hong Kong. When you push the door, you will see a nine-meter-high chandelier made of Swarovski crystals, pouring down like a waterfall of light. Expensive artworks decorate the walls and entrance, which is just right. Jazz, expensive champagne and spirits, as well as exquisite and beautiful women... M1NT's night is the epitome of Hong Kong's social circle. Richard Li, Eric Fok [zh], Wan Baobao [zh] and others are all shareholders and members of M1NT Hong Kong. I was there in person when M1NT opened and spent a lot of money. Obviously, M1NT's "investment-style rich club" concept is more attractive to the young "rich second generation". Rich and wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and mainland China, represented by Richard Li, like to come to this club with a low-key appearance and luxurious interior, where they can express themselves at the same time. The owner of the club."

  3. Mccord, Mark (2006-05-17). "Exclusive club would have Bond shaken and stirred". Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "As the drinks are served the back wall lifts slowly to reveal a huge aquarium dominated by a hammerhead shark. It’s no accident that the prospect of a night at M1NT, the exclusive members’ bar due to open in Hong Kong in September, sounds uncannily like a night in the high-tech lair of one of movie spy James Bond’s villains. ... With 25-million Hong Kong dollars (more than $3-million) earmarked for the project on the fringe of the downtown business district, M1NT Hong Kong promises to be the most technologically dazzling bar in Asia."

  4. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "Three years ago, the members-only club M1NT was London’s talk of the town. Billed as the world’s first club in which members could own shares, M1NT quickly became known as the place where nouveau riche and old money rubbed shoulders, with members reportedly including Val Kilmer and Laura Parker Bowles. ... But the club persevered, relocating to Mayfair and more recently opening locations in Hong Kong and Cannes."

  5. Crawford, Barclay (2009-12-19). "Conflicting versions of the reason for departure of M1NT entrepreneur". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "Nightclub entrepreneur Alistair Paton, who once battled celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey over his London establishment, has left Hong Kong for good. Paton (pictured, far right) arrived in the city and launched members club M1NT on Hollywood Road, Sheung Wan, with Andrew Lewis (also pictured) in November 2006. But those close to the club say relations between Paton and others involved in M1NT, including many members and shareholders, have soured over the months. 'It was a business decision,' one of them said."

  6. Tacon, Dave (2014-06-22). "Nothing exceeds like excess". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-06-27. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "The Shanghai Club's modern incarnation is M1NT, launched in 2009 on the 24th floor of a building just back from the Bund. Founded by Australian former merchant banker Alistair Paton (who also opened and closed M1NT venues in London and Hong Kong under controversial circumstances), M1NT proclaimed itself "the world's first shareholder's club". ... With about 15,000 customers per week and partnerships with numerous luxury brands – the club had a formula one racing car delivered by crane to hang from its ceiling for one event – M1NT had navigated the treacherous waters of China's hospitality industry with little trouble. That was until Paton made it known that the club was for sale earlier this year."

  7. Ryan, Colleen (2008-12-30). "Let's get this party started". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "Paton has brought his formula for a private member-shareholder club, M1NT, across the South China Sea from Hong Kong and spent more than $8 million turning the top floor of a new office building near the Bund into a club the size of four soccer fields. Within a few weeks of opening, M1NT had launched the new Ferrari and showcased the Porsche 911. Both times, cars were taken by crane 24 storeys up to be displayed in the middle of the club. The Mayor of Shanghai turned up for the opening night, a rare distinction for a Western nightclub in this city. ... Paton failed with his first club in London but has been enormously successful in Hong Kong, where M1NT is Krug champagne's biggest customer in Asia."

  8. Cavaliere, Patrizio (2020-08-07). "Opulent Shanghai Hotspot M1NT Mysteriously Shuts Down. Pandemic related economic challenges are a likely cause, but does this signify the end or a new beginning?". Mixmag. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "The club was originally opened by Alistair Paton in 2004, who opened the first M1NT in London's mega-affluent Knightsbridge. It was acquired by the Hong Kong-based Sino Group in 2014, who operate an array of venues across China, so there is a distinct possibility that M1NT will return in one incarnation or another."

  9. Crawford, Barclay (2008-04-20). "M1NT's HK investors fret after London axe". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article notes: "M1NT London opened in a blaze of publicity in 2005, claiming a long list of celebrities as members. The original venue closed after a dispute between Mr Paton, the young Australian founder, and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey. Hong Kong's M1NT opened in November 2006, with rumours of a prominent celebrity shareholding and membership. Mr Paton has claimed the closure of the London club was due to his landlord going into liquidation and the firm's decision to focus on Asia."

  10. "Alistair Paton, making a Mint in Shanghai". Shanghai Daily. 2009-01-04. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Paton, 30, is the driving force behind the entity's restaurant and club facilities on the 24th floor of its own branded high-rise building on Fuzhou Road. It is the newest business in a global group with operations also in Hong Kong, Cannes and Beijing. Mint Shanghai has been trading for six weeks from a standing start on May 16, which is why Paton is exhausted."

  11. Wozniak, Lara (2006-05-12). "Club M1NT invites Hong Kong's hippest to invest". FinanceAsia. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Consider the original M1NT London. Opened 18 months ago, it is billed as "the hottest and most successful private members club in London, which counts celebrities, billionaires and royalty among its members". Do a Google Search and you'll find pictures featured in OK! magazine of beautiful people. The Financial Times more sedately described it as ôAn indulgence that will make you money". The Hong Kong version is opening in September in a 4,500 square-foot venue on Hollywood Road. M1NT Hong Kong has secured a ten-year-lease on the property from Henderson Land Development who will announce the actual location in about one month. But expect 14-metre ceilings, a mezzanine and water-motifs that will feature oh-so-appropriately for Hong Kong, a shark tank. There's already a 1,200-person-long list of applicants. Most will be turned away."

  12. Walsh, Dominic (2006-07-12). "Gordon Ramsay shuts club over rent arrears". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "M1NT, the trendy Knightsbridge club that claims its membership includes “nine billionaires alongside Hollywood’s A-list”, has been abruptly shut down by Gordon Ramsay, its equally famous landlord."

  13. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported. One insider said: “The list I saw has nobody of note. They may have been sent the marketing literature, but they didn’t join.” Separately, I’ve heard Gordon Ramsay, the feisty chef who owns the club’s leasehold, has fallen out with Paton over alleged rent arrears."

  14. A new high-class club opens in Shanghai (Video journalism). Associated Press. 2015-07-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via YouTube.

      The video notes: "This is club M1NT which recently opened in Shanghai."

  15. "名家筆陣：夜場高風險" [Famous writers: high risk in nightclubs]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "那些年，一家名為M1NT的夜店在○四年於倫敦開幕。創業家Alistair Paton曾在澳洲悉尼當外匯交易員，幾經轉折變了夜總會班主，由倫敦轉戰亞洲，○六年在荷里活道街尾，一個優皮一族屋苑樓下，開了家為中環人而設的會籍制夜總會M1NT，賣點之一是內裏有個很大的鯊魚缸可供欣賞，也有貌美接待員。"

      From Google Translate: "In those years, a nightclub called M1NT opened in London in 2004. Entrepreneur Alistair Paton once worked as a foreign exchange trader in Sydney, Australia. After several twists and turns, he became a nightclub owner. He moved from London to Asia. In 2006, he opened a restaurant in Central at the end of Hollywood Road, downstairs of a Yuppie housing estate. One of the selling points of M1NT, a membership-based nightclub designed for people, is that there is a large shark tank for viewing and there is also a beautiful receptionist."

  16. Greene, Lucie (2006-05-14). "Private Clubs: Cocktail empire: The British are coming. From NYC to Cannes, who better to run a venue where exclusivity is mixed with snobbery and style? Lucie Greene on the clubs luring stars to the bars". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "THE vibe: money. Indeed the whole Mint enterprise (or M1NT, as they say) is based on cash. The first 250 memberships bought shares in the club which made the buyers the owners. The same masterstroke is taking place in Hong Kong. It has been said that among the first Chelsea members there were nine billionaires. You can also expect to see lots of glam women. Well, maybe we'll join after all. They also achieved some publicity by turning down an application from the Beckhams."

  17. "M1NT上海 顶级私人俱乐部 (1)" [M1NT Shanghai top private club (1)]. Vogue (in Chinese). 2010-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "M1NT将这个模式在香港和戛纳成功推广，其中2006年在香港开幕的M1NT俱乐部获得了巨大成功，全年收入超过财政预期，股东分得了15％的分红，股价在第一年内上涨了80％.而2007年的M1NT戛纳俱乐部聪明地选择了在5月的戛纳电影节开幕，好莱坞明星和导演等1500多人参与了这场盛会。"

      From Google Translate: "M1NT successfully promoted this model in Hong Kong and Cannes. The M1NT club opened in Hong Kong in 2006 was a huge success. The full-year revenue exceeded financial expectations, shareholders received a 15% dividend, and the stock price rose by 80% in the first year. The 2007 M1NT Cannes Club wisely chose to open at the Cannes Film Festival in May. More than 1,500 people including Hollywood stars and directors participated in this event."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow M1NT to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, time to assess some new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This AfD has been refbombed with 17 references where selected quotes are displayed but notably, omitting the parts which show that the article is either based on interview/quotations or merely commentary about the club or owner and not the company. Not a single reference meets NCORP, they are all based on regurgitating company announcements and PR. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The sources contain plenty of independent reporting about M1NT including critical analysis:
  1. Crawford, Barclay (2007-01-07). "M1NT conditions". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-02-29.

     The article contains a lot of critical coverage of M1NT. The article notes: "While the club opened to a rush of publicity in November - including speculation about possible celebrity shareholders and members - the city's sparkle may have faded slightly for the 28-year-old Australian following accusations from several of his investors he has kept them in the dark, barred a billionaire for being too old and even mistreated nine black-tipped sharks.

     The article further notes: "M1NT in Hollywood Road may have been open for only two months but already senior staff have quit, including the membership manager, lounge manager and Mr Paton's executive assistant. ... There has been a lack of big-name celebrities or prominent businessmen signing up. Staff of PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-kai at one time frantically hit the phones to try to get the Chinese papers to retract the claim their boss was a member. There has also been criticism of the club's feature of a tank with nine black-tipped sharks, which are subjected nightly to booming music. ... Shareholders' concern about the flow of financial information stems from the fact many are far from the wealthy elite M1NT claims to attract."

  2. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article contains critical coverage of M1NT. The columnist discusses the loss of three chairmen in under a year because each was said to be "uncomfortable with Paton's management style". The columnist said Paton "needs to get on with those he hires" to manage M1NT. The columnist includes critical commentary about the club, "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported."

  3. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

     The article includes negative coverage of M1NT, "But not all went smoothly for M1NT and its brash young founder, former trader Alistair Paton. The club’s original location, on Sloane Street, closed in summer 2006 after the building’s landlord (a company owned by Gordon Ramsay) claimed M1NT had fallen behind on its rent. And some of the boldface names identified as M1NT members—Elizabeth Hurley among them—told the press they’d never set foot in the place."

  4. Mixmag, a British magazine, discussed how the Shanghai nightclub M1NT closed. The article discusses the club's history and characteristics and notes that the club closed. The article notes, "We reached out for an interview but so far haven't received a response".
  The Wikipedia article's topic is the M1NT nightclubs in London and Shanghai, not the company M1NT Global Holdings that once owned the nightclubs.

  Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Response The topic is the business, the company, and the topic is described about it being a nightclub business. You're familiar with GNG/NCORP requirements already. Looking at the references you've listed just now:

• South China Morning Post article relies entirely on information provided by Alistair Paton and what he refers to as a "whispering campaign" by anonymous sources and town gossip and contains next to zero information about the company and certainly nothing that can be considered as in-depth. The "critical coverage" you're referring to in the article concerns, for the most part, the gossip/rumours about Mr. Paton and elements of the club. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
• Times article is a total of 10 sentences and is also relying on unidentified "moles" and is nothing but gossip. This is not in-depth information or any type of analysis for the purposes of establishing notability, fails NCORP and ORGIND
• W Magazine reference is also only 10 sentences and is also mostly gossip about members and reasons for relocation and relies on quotes from Paton. Not in-depth, not about the company, also fails NCORP.
• Mixmag reference is yet another 10 sentence piece, mostly speculation about why the Shanghai club closed. There is no in-depth information on the company, no analysis/fact checking/whatever and is useless for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH.

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability, nor mentions in gossip columns, nor articles based on unidentified "moles" nor articles regurgitating Mr. Paton. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I can see you love WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources above that found by Cunard are really sinificant sources contain plenty of independent reporting about the subject. How much do you need. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep agree per sources found by respected editor Cunard. No matter how WP:IDONTLIKE (Redacted) here. I choose you keep. Thanks 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your contributions to topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China, including your detailed research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liuyang fireworks. Regarding this AfD, you have made strong arguments about how the sources are significant and independent. I recommend focusing on discussing the sources instead of editors since the closer will give sourcing-based arguments much greater weight. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources notes: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." The sources I quoted above are not "gossip". They show "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". That the articles include quotations from people affiliated with M1NT does not render the entire articles non-independent. There is enough independent research and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant sources.

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience notes: "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."

  The M1NT nightclubs in Hong Kong, London, and Shanghai received international coverage:

  1. Australia: Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald
  2. China: Shanghai Daily, Vogue Chinese, and 名牌 [Mangazine]
     • Hong Kong: FinanceAsia, Oriental Daily News, and South China Morning Post
  3. South Africa: Mail & Guardian
  4. United Kingdom: The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Mixmag, and The Times
  5. United States: Associated Press and W
  Non-notable nightclubs do not receive significant coverage in five countries.

  The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. Non-notable nightclubs do not receive sustained significant coverage over a period of 15 years.

  Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *topic company* must be the subject of in-depth reporting. The *topic company* is not any of the nightclubs. None of the references pointed out by Cunard meets the requirements as set out in GNG/WP:NCORP for the simple reasons that they're either not about the topic company, or they are unsubstantiated rumours or they rely on information provided by the people connected with the company. This is very obvious to anyone who reads any of the references. Notability is not derived from a quantity of poor gossip-driven coverage over a sustained period of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well said!! Who care? 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Fancy business opens, then closes during the pandemic. Initial burst of coverage, then they closed. I don't see long-term notability, sourcing is mostly primary as above, or non-notable business things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, leaning towards delete. Seems to be a flash in the pan, with only rumors and primary info serving as sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are publications from five countries. The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. This is over a period of 15 years. How is this "a flash in the plan"? How is this not "long-term notability"? Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As said by @HighKing, the sources you provided are either not about their company, but rather their clubs, or about rumors. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: in my analysis of the sources presented, I don't think this meets the the notability threshold for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I'm relying on guidance from WP:Identifying and using primary sources and I'd want to point to § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Given the coverage and the over-reliance on interviews or simple coverage of business events as oppose to the business itself in-depth vs the location in others, put together, I don't think this passes muster. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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.