Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 31: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:05, 31 August 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 30	September 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht Club de Chile

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

No reliable sources cover the topic in enough depth to ensure its notability. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. Zero sources. Private club. Less than 70 years old. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient coverage --Loewstisch (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gehard Hasa

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 10 minutes in Albania's highest league and 13 games in the semi-pro second tier.

Sources in the article aren’t about him. Both is about the squad, with this to say about Hasa: ”Gerhard Hasa from striker has been adapted to right back” + “The innovation was the activation of striker Gehard Hasa as right back, another sector where Partizan has problems”. This is a friendly match report.

This comes much closer to significant coverage, but since his career didn’t pan out, that article also seems a bit inconsequential. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. One decent source is not enough on its own. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete additional source needed and 1 news site is not enough. Xegma(talk) 19:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood Music and Arts Festival

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

Article about a defunct music festival, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, festivals are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG -- but the only "reference" cited here at all is a Facebook post, not a reliable or notability-building source, and a WP:BEFORE search only turned up unrelated coverage of other similarly-named events in Massachusetts or Australia rather than anything about this.
Since the event apparently went defunct a decade ago and thus might not Google well, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British and Irish media reportage from the early 2010s than I've got can find enough to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Northern Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and WP:NEVENT. (This relatively short-lived and mostly local-interest music festival has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable/independent sources. What coverage I can find is mostly ROTM "events listings" and the usual pre-event promotion. The lineup for the 2011 event involved only (as far as I can see) local/non-notable performers. While the 2012 and 2013 (and to a degree the 2014) events did seem to attract a few notable bands (which are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles), this music festival does not "inherit" notability from those bands. And the only sources that I can find, to establish even these basic facts, are the same type of events listings coverage we might expect for any event or gig anywhere.) It might, just about, be worthwhile redirecting to the Narrow Water Castle article. As an alternative to deletion. But, even that seems a bit much (as, as of today, the castle article doesn't mention the music festival. In fact, the subject festival isn't mentioned in any other articles - which in itself is kinda telling....) Guliolopez (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s not the notable Tanglewood Music Festival. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Online panel

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

Declined PROD. This article had no sources for the last seventeen years, but when declining the PROD, the declining user jammed three refs onto the first sentence of the article that do all mention online panels. One appears to be a research paper, which is fine for verification but does not establish notability. The others appear to be brief mentions of online panels in books about market research. I don't believe notability was clearly established by WP:REFBOMBING in this fashion, so here we are. It has not been proven that there is in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't think we generally consider the <whatever> For Dummies series of books to really be something we should be basing encyclopedia content on, but that's ok because none of the content is actually based on it, it was just tacked on as a ref because a Google search showed that Online Surveys For Dummies contains the words "online panel" a few times. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first source is not a "research paper" it is an edited volume on the concept of "online panels" AKA a 500+ page book that is literally just about the article topic. The third source is not "brief" it has multiple pages discussing the pros and cons and methods of this kind of research. This appears to be a significant concept in marketing research, see here, here , here, here, dozens upon dozens more, etc. The prod said it had been unsourced for 17 years and therefore was clearly non notable which is nonsense. Also, in what world is refbombing adding three sources? My rationale for citing the less academic source is it provided a better explanation as to what the topic was and I didn't want to go jumping through hoops to find that in the edited volume to cite the first sentence. Probably not the best source but not unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on a merge, in any case that seems like one of many possible targets and a fairly arbitrary one - it doesn’t seem any closer linked to the focus group concept than many of the other marketing concepts discussed with it. There is a 500 page book about this and many many many articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book’s definition set out in its introduction is: “an online panel is a “form of access panel, defined in the international standard, ISO 20252 "Market, opinion and social research - Vocabulary and Service Requirements," as "a sample database of potential respondents who declare that they will cooperate for future data collection if selected" (International Organization for Standardization, 2012, p. 1). These panels sometimes include a very large number of people (often one million or more) who are sampled on numerous occasions and asked to complete a questionnaire for a myriad of generally unrelated studies. Originally, these panels were called discontinuous access panels […] Panel members can be re-sampled (and routinely are) to take part in another study with varying levels of frequency.” Not really a focus group since it involves many many more people while a focus group is small. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’ll try to expand it to start class tomorrow so the article actually makes clear what this is (and also because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is after writing so many words) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are now words PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well known concept in the field of research. Taking a quick look at the google scholar results, besides the sources identified by PARAKANYAA, this research paper discussing online panels in marketing research, this research paper that talks about how online panels might have specific biases and this research paper talks about alternative ways to setup online panels to provide better quality data. I also don't understand the rationale of the nom, not having sources for a long period of time has nothing to do with the topics current notability and the refbombing allegations also appear to be exaggerated, all three of the references added are relevant and show that the topic has been written about in depth. Sohom (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Focus group. Searching on scholar shows that "Online panel" and "Focus group" are closely linked concepts [1]. It makes sense to cover them in the same article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more before potentially closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Focus group - per Hemiauchenia. These are a thing, but they are not really an independent thing. Focus group is where readers will find the related informatio that supplies the context for the online panel. This should be treated there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The problem with that is that this isn't a focus group. It is a form of access panel, according to all of the sources that talk about it. If we're going to merge it anywhere it should be there but that article is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Focus group is the correct target. I think access panel should also be merged or redirected there. Neither makes much sense as a subject divorced from the parent subject of a focus group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It being merged would just make the page worse. It is not the parent subject, they're related subjects but it is not the "parent". It makes more sense for it to be deleted than merged there, as it has no clear space in that article. There is a several hundred page book and several journal articles delineating the specifics of this concept. I think that is enough to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was clear that a page that already has a heading "Types" and a heading "Online focus groups" clearly has a place for this. As for space, that page has about 3,000 words of prose - half of the lowest threshold for WP:SIZERULE. So there is no problem with space. The reader is better served by having this aspect of focus group engineering treated in situ, rather than hived off to a page where there is little notable to say. Detailed methodology is not encyclopaedic information per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups, though. We have an article on online focus groups already - which is what that section is on. I meant it doesn't have the space as in contextually, without it being made more confusing. There's plenty of notable encyclopedic stuff to say regarding its prevalence, usage, history, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups. Yes. Thus merge and not redirect. All other comments pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Access panel is a Redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it isn't a suitable target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Happy to restore to draft if someone is able to identify a reliable source confirming his existence. Star Mississippi 13:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

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

This appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uganda. toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep most sources on the article are self-published, however per WP:MONARCH he is considered automatically notable as a sovereign ruler. Azarctic (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue is, I'm not sure if he's even real (I haven't seen a mention of him predating the 2010s), and even if we count that particular newspaper article as reliable (which I'm not certain that it is), the only thing we can say is that he existed, which isn't enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the Daily Monitor holds a left-leaning editorial bias and is reasonably fact-based; however, they poorly source information. The articles does really need more reliable sources for verification which is why I made my vote a weak keep. Azarctic (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious at best. Each source finds its way back to a self-published honours mill. Wikipedia is not here to boost the claims of unreferenced, unverifiable pedigrees. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a search, and there does seem to be quite a few sources on the topic, so that mostly rules being a hoax. And of coarse WP:MONARCH makes the topic notable. Lordseriouspig 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link some of those sources? toweli (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources exist, add some to the article. Just saying sources exist and not providing any, does not improve the state that the article is in. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. He might have existed, but right now this page is borderline TNT. Can someone please adopt this article and fix it? Bearian (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't keep this; we can barely tell if this person even existed. I found zero scholarly sources whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwa Losben

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

The only coverage of the subject in reliable sources that I was able to find is this 2009 NBC Philadelphia article. toweli (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, California, and Washington, D.C.. toweli (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. The award listed is non-notable award-giving body. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Not notable enough. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Nepomuk von Lobkovicz

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

The seemingly extensive page describes only his family tree and property, but does not mention anything that makes him notable for a separate encyclopedia article. The mere fact that he was from a noble family does not make him notable. FromCzech (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It’s unclear if he had an actual career, or any secular political power. If either of these questions are answered yes, then he’s notable. If both are answered in the negative, then he fails WP:POL. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He was the imperial-royal chamberlain [cs], a court office that qualifies under WP:NPOL as a senior court official and the chief secretary of the royal household. Moreover, he also meets WP:ANYBIO criteria as he has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary, the Austrian Biographical Encyclopedia (Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950). I've expanded the article. Thank you. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cswiki says that it was a service function in the imperial rooms, and from the 1620s it was an honorary office. This cannot be called a political function. The second argument looks better, but I prefer to let others judge. FromCzech (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech, Yes I agree, not like Korean inner court system; it may be an honorary office, but it can be notable. Thank you so much for agreeing with me on the second argument. Cheer 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Southeast Asia's absolute monarchy systems, the head of the royal household was historically a minister of the interior. In Thailand and Myanmar, the head of the royal chamber is referred to as the "Hmanan Atwin-wun" (minister of the royal chamber) in Myanmar and the "Chief of the Royal Household Bureau" (หัวหน้าองค์การพระราชพิธี) in Thailand. These positions have the right to attend the royal parliament (Hluttaw). This is why I believe the role of imperial chamberlain in Western contexts may be similar to that of a minister, and positions held by ministers are often automatically considered notable on Wikipedia under WP:NPOL. Thanks. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, meets WP:ANYBIO with an entry in a national dictionary of biography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that no notability are found for this person and that being in a noble family does not make him notable. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: This account is newly created and appears to be used solely for the purpose of deleting articles via AfD as a weapon. Regardless of whether the subject is clearly notable, the editor ignored all comments and points from other editors and consistently voted for 'auto delete' (see his vote history). This behavior harms Wikipedia's pillars and notable topics. What is the community value for these AfDs? Thanks. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
223.204.71.128, if you are talking about Priscilladfb16, they have been commenting in a lot of AFDs recently but they have been editing since June. You will need to provide evidence/diffs of something nefarious going on and not just casting aspersions. Also, in the English-speaking world, Priscilla is a women's name so the "his" should probably be a "her". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Due to gift after noble action got immensely rich (see other language wiki for the story which is related)[[2]] (German ref). Plus WP:ANYBIO. --Axisstroke (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of available source material would be helpful for determining actual notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade The above discussion is very clear, with one delete vote and three strong keep votes from experienced editors. Does it really need to be relisted? What are your concerns? 223.206.45.210 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ANYBIO with an entry in the Austrian Dictionary of National Biography. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fasl-ı Cedid

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

Probably need a native speaker to figure out whether this is notable from sources such as http://bodrumkoro.org/cevdetcagla.html Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find sources like [3] and [4] that mention the subject; also many other reliable sources point out that Santuri Hilmi Bey, the person considered to be the representative of this musical ensemble (or style) is the grandfather of the composer of the current Turkish national anthem, Osman Zeki Üngör. I believe there is a plausible potential to find more sources if we could search the offline archives or books, based on the references given for the subject in these kinds of academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is also discussed in two other academic papers I found here and here. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is discussed by quite a few sources. [5][6] Aintabli (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's no support for an outright deletion, but views are roughly evenly split between keeping this as a standalone article, and merging into National Guard of Ukraine. I'm calling this a "Keep", but splitting the difference with No consensus in allowing renomination in three months. Ideally, however, this should be resolved with a merge discussion on the Talk page. Merger is an editorial action, making AfD a suboptimal tool to debate it. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any sources online, possibly redirect to National Guard of Ukraine? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559047920465), (https://www.ukrdruk.com/product/flag-00853/), (https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888632-u-nacgvardii-stvorili-centr-upravlinna-bezpilotnih-sistem-komanduvac.html) Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[7] - gives short description, commander, where it's based from MUN number.
[8] - article about drone hunting group of brigade not receiving bonuses. 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceriy (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brigade is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a notability guideline which states that? LibStar (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an opinion based on the much mocked (by deletionists, of course) WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. Which notability guideline grants inherent notability to brigades? LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is most unlike any admin I've encountered. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First artillery brigade of the National Guard. [9] Ceriy (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Guard of Ukraine. In the absence of a notability guideline granting inherent notability which I have asked for and received no response. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. First artillery brigade of the National Guard. Article has references. Ceriy (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC) (you can not cast multiple votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Brigade is first artillery unit of the National Guard. There are sources covering Brigade. Article is improved with sources now. Ceriy (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: HEY. It appears to be a big enough unit to have its own article, and assuming the added sources are correct, then there’s significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At a glance, this might look like consensus to keep. However, the arguments need greater specificity and should perhaps address policy more clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably notable, I found a few sources with this search: [10] After reconsidering this could probably be Merged or redirected. Lordseriouspig 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordseriouspig: Can you please link those sources? I performed the same search during WP:BEFORE and only found one site with related prose, Militaryland.net, a self published source previously discussed on RSN. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering, this could probably be merged. Lordseriouspig 07:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as there is no SNG that grants inherent notability and WP:NORG is not met here. I couldn't find any coverage beyond what is in the article. C F A 💬 18:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://republic.com.ua/article/ukra%D1%97nska-armiya-formu%D1%94-novi-brigadi-2.html		Presumably	40 words of coverage that basically only confirms its existence in a listicle with 15 other units.	✘ No
https://focus.ua/uk/voennye-novosti/647504-v-ukrajini-stvorili-okremu-artileriysku-brigadu-nacionalnoji-gvardiji-shcho-pro-neji-vidomo			~ Some of the article is about the organization, but half of it focuses on a military vehicle, the 2S22 Bohdana.	~ Partial
https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888545-brigadnij-general-oleksandr-pivnenko-komanduvac-nacgvardii.html	Whole article is a primary interview transcript with Oleksandr Pivnenko, a Ukrainian general. Ukrinform is state-owned media.		One paragraph in a long interview transcript. No secondary coverage.	✘ No
https://malva.tv/20240814/na-svitlynax-spiljna-robota-artylerystiv-okremoji-artylerijsjkoji-bryhady-nhu-ta-12-ji-bryhady-specialjnoho/		? Wordpress.com browser icon, so likely questionable reliability.	Entire article is images. No coverage at all.	✘ No
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-volodimir-zelenskij-i-persha-ledi-olena-zelenska-v-92821	Government press release		Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.telegraf.in.ua/kremenchug/10131868-vipusknik-kremenchuckogo-vijskovogo-liceju-oleg-golinej-otrimav-bojovij-prapor-dlja-okremoji-artilerijskoji-brigadi-ngu.html		? @gmail.com contact address, so likely questionable reliability.	Trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment I endorse analysis above, there isn't coverage to meet GNG or WP:ORG, thus merge/redirect looks like a suitable option. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The lone Keep !voter had a week to respond and cite the claimed sources, but failed to do so. If sources proving notability do materialize in the future, the page can always be REFUNDed. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvi Patri

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

Fails WP:NBAD, WP:GNG. Actually its nowhere near meeting the basic badminton guidelines. zoglophie^•talk• 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Badminton, and India. zoglophie^•talk• 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tanvi Patri has done very well at the youth level of her sport, and if she continues to play at adult level and to be successful, we may see her becoming notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in a few years. However, she isn't there yet, either by the general notability guideline or by the subject specific guidelines relevant to her. JBW (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the comment above, this is TOOSOON. Winning u15 and u17 tournaments isn't quite notable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BLP passes gen. notability criteria as there is huge coverage in India. All mainstream Indian newspapers like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Times of India have covered her and there are at least two secondary sources, which covered her in detail. I feel it should be kept. OR atleast drafted, BUT NOT deleted. Davidindia (talk)

Perhaps you can provide some references to the "huge coverage" of her then, since there aren't any at present. The cited articles in the three newspapers you mention are merely routine news reports of match results, and none of them have more than a few sentences about her; they are not even moderate coverage of her, let alone "huge coverage". JBW (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion has headed in the delete direction, but we should allow the keep !voter a chance to respond to the question about sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of dams and reservoirs in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beşkarış Dam

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

There are several uncited articles about dams - is there any specific guidance on how to tell whether a dam is notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, List of dams and reservoirs in Turkey (whichi includes this one) all seem to be created by User:Starzynka who has been blocked as a prolific sock creator, abusing multiple accounts. I don't know of any guide that mentions how to deal with this, but I would have no problem if there were some way to delete all of the damns on this user's list. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for a Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article isn’t unsourced as there is an external link to the relevant state agency, but that’s not a secondary source. There are sources that could make this pass but the broader question is whether we need a stub on every individual small local reservoir in Turkey. My view in that is “no”, so redirecting to the list seems sensible, Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of dams, unless sources come to light for this particular dam. Ingratis (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan

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

Does not seem to be notable. Tagged unsourced for over a decade and the Kurdish article has no sources either. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Middle East. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as usual, articles shouldn't be tagged for AfD based on the lack of references in the article at present, but based on the availability of potential sources for expansion. A quick google books search reveals plenty of material that could be used, based on both Kurdish and Turkish versions of the name, which could be used for sourcing and expansion before bringing the article to AfD process. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, you might want to note wordings like "We will now briefly go through the expressions employed about the 'armed struggle' by the three prinicipal groups which had remarkably drawn more popular support among the Kurds of Turkey than the PKK in the late 1970s. The Vanguard Workers Party of Kurdistan (PPKK ..." (Turkey's Kurds: A Theoretical Analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, my emphasis) --Soman (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It should not be in mainspace. Ben Azura (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reliable sources exist. Dratifying an old article is a waste of time. Yue🌙 04:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides from highly experienced editors, but no rough consensus. It sounds like a merge discussion on Talk:Free Church of England for both this page and for Southern Diocese would be more productive. Or failing that, renomination in six months. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Northern Diocese, which is the subject of a very current controversy in the news: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, Christian Today and the Lancashire Post. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that precedent matters on wikipedia? We're a consenus based organization, that means that we explicitly reject the concept of precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, anglicanmainstream.org and anglican.ink are blogs, telegraph.co.uk does not write about the church itself but about an alleged crime (you could in theory use it to claim that the crime was notable, but not the church), and it would be weird to use the Lancashire Post article to claim its notable because the article is about how non-notable it is Demolition is justified through the current state of the building not being fit for use and no longer used by the local community. so you'd only have an article on christiantoday.com which is way too meager to make something notable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deletion is obviously inappropriate, but I'm curious regarding the motivation to break this off from the main FCE article, as I don't see there's a SIZE issue necessitating a split. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? Because currently this does not pass WP:GNG. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Do you need a basic intro to alternatives to deletion? Because I don't want to sound pedantic if you already understand it, but your question makes no sense in light of the content of my comment. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I know that merging exist, but your POV is as clear as mud to me. If a subject does not meet GNG standards, delete/merge seems the only appropriate action possible. I also don't know why everyone is named clemens and I feel a bit left out. Poly "clemens" gnotus (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know nothing of the sort. I'm a curationist, which means I'm always looking to present information in the best possible format, and merging or redirection is one of the best tools to do that. Deletion is unnecessarily confrontational for content where non-notability is the primary argument that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: This is an encyclopedia, not /r/datahoarder, so deleting is not "confrontational", it is perhaps the most important thing you can do to improve Wikipedia. The Northern Diocese does not meet GNG, and the little content it has would be difficult to merge into the FCE article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a great argument for keeping it as a separate article. I agree. Keep as merging would be suboptimal and per the other keep arguments. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: you appear to be deliberately misinterpreting what Polygnotus said, there is no good faith way to interpret that as a "great argument for keeping it as a separate article" other than incompetence (which doesn't seem to be your issue) so this is uncivil and disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back Please temper your comments. You are entitled to your opinions, but impugning the good faith and/or competence of editors who disagree with you is not conducive to a collegial discussion. Kind regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At best Jclemens is mocking Polygnotus, that is not conducive to a collegial discussion... But you did not ask Jclemens to temper their comments or lecture them about impugning Polygnotus's competence and good faith (which is the result of such public mockery). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. I'm merely applying the natural consequence of Polygnotus' badgering behavior. Beginning with would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? that editor's behavior has been irrelevant to my position--should this be kept or merged?--and as such, convinced me that opposing their apparent attempt to Right Great Wrongs was in the encyclopedia's best interest. You see, I could care less whether a religious group is a fringe schism or not, I just want us to cover it appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Back to work please gentlemen. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're throwing evidence free aspersions of WP:badgering? There had better be evidence from other pages to support that assertion, because the edits to this page do not. I don't see how sources that demonstrate notability could be irrelevant to a position taken in a deletion discussion... Such a position can only be based on the existance or presumed existence of such sources (there is no other path to notability). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this circular reasoning. It's directly at odds with long-established policy that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools" - should this been removed from WP:ORGCRIT then? Also "Presumptively notable" means we assume it is notable, unless evidence exists to the contrary, as it does here. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder I think you're taking an excessively legalistic approach to this. If you look at the subject of ships; almost any named military vessel or ocean going commercial ship has been treated as presumptively notable as long as there is evidence that it exists (or did). ASFAIK this is not explicitly spelled out in any guidelines. But I can't remember the last time an article about a military vessel or ocean going ship was deleted at AfD. And yes there are some obscure ships with very little in the form RS coverage. Sometimes just a short blurb in Janes and/or maybe an old news clipping somewhere. In the end, NORG is not policy. It's a guideline as are all of the SNGs. And there are and have always been generally accepted exceptions that the community has adopted organically over the years w/o spelling it all out in a new or amended guideline. On the other hand WP:IAR is WP:POLICY. I don't wish to come across as trivializing NORG or any of our other SNGs. I think they serve a useful purpose in keeping the clutter and promotional fertilizer out of the project. But I do not believe they should be treated as some form of scripture, i.e. infallible, inerrant and the last word on all matters. See also WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to cite WP:IAR to explain why an article about an individual diocese of a fringe religious group with less than 20 churches in a country of nearly 70 million should be kept irrespective of sourcing, I think that demonstrates my point completely. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe religious group? Ummm... ok. I think we have reached a point where we should just agree that we disagree and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's controversial there. I'm not suggesting religious groups are fringe in general, I'm saying this is a very, very small group. It has less than 20 member churches, many with tiny congregations. In comparison the Diocese of Bristol in the Church of England has more than 200 churches alone. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precendent... And wikipedia is not a precedent based organization... When it comes to policy and guideline based arguments precedent is not among them. You are currently arguing against a common sense approach, your position is the extremist/anti-consensus one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only valid (policy and guideline based) keep argument is Atlantic306's... They're right that it doesn't have to pass ORGCRIT and they're right that passing GNG would be enough... The problem is that they don't demonstrate that it passes GNG, and it doesn't pass GNG. People keep saying precendent... but there is no precendent in policy or guideine on wikipedia, we're explicitly a consenus bases organization not a precendent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why merging to the parent denomination isn't appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if a small selection of editors had actually made a case for merging rather than falsely asserting all dioceses of all religious groups no matter the size are notable irrespective of lack of secondary sources then people might be supporting a merge. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging in this context. Merging is for when there is valuable content that would be of use somewhere else on wikipedia, this is self-sourced clutter of no signficant encyclopedic value. Nothing valuable or useful therefore nothing to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but either way, expand with the contents of this book
Fenwick, John (2004-08-24). The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition. T&T Clark International (now Bloomsbury Academic). pp. 133–142. ISBN 978-0-567-08433-0..
because anyone interested in this subject is likely to be interested in the time the last surviving bishop nearly died trying to make the next bishop, as well as the local churches that split back to the organizations they originally split off from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this potentially contribute to the notability of the church? How specifically the Northern Diocese? Also WP:GNG requires secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you didn't read the source, since the story here is specifically about the bishop of the Northern Diocese. Saying that's irrelevant is like saying that hiring the CEO for a company is irrelevant to the article about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how does any of what you've just said apply to notability? Because there doesn't actually appear to be a policy or guideline based argument in there... Fenwick is associated with the topic of the article so their book doesn't count towards notability at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea here that no source written by a member of a religion is Truly™ independent? We have not generally applied that standard to religious subjects, just like we have not checked authors' political party membership or nationality when deciding what contributes to notability for politicians or countries. It looks like the author became a bishop in this religious organization a few years after this publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source written by a member of the leadership of a religion (colloquially the clergy) is independent of the organization they are a leader in. It applies to any organization (political and military as well). A paper published by a serving US Army officer can't be used as an independent source on a US Army post. Similarly coverage from a political party's founder does not count towards that party's notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, It would perhaps be an improvement to this article if former parishes were noted also, to show the shifting geographic distribution of the denomination, for which the 1995 R.D. Fenwick (an Anglican Communion bishop, not a relative of the FCofE bishop J. Fenwick) doctoral thesis, currently the first source on the Free Church of England article, would be a useful source as regards the 19th & 20th C, but would not cover 21st C changes. However, with the currently information alone, neither this article, nor Southern Diocese, are seemingly sufficiently large as to necessitate separation from the main Free Church of England article, the details of the historic bishops and the current locations is relevant information regarding the Free Church of England, the sufficient notability of which I believe is not doubted. SemperAdiuvans (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you rightly say, the articles currently do not demonstrate why they should be seperate from the main article on the church. I would support restoring some of the content back to the notable church page. AusLondonder (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally theses are not counted towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as I stated in the AfD for the Southern Diocese. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at that AfD is "Keep (or the alternative, merge) per Dclemens1971 and Ad Orientem. It’s not a new sect or religion; it’s almost 200 years old. Mainstream apostolic churches are notable."[11] which doesn't appear to apply to either situation, these aren't deletion discussions for the religion/church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Northern Diocese and Southern Diocese. The church is notable, but the individual dioceses aren't. Both lists of congregations are short, and if they were given in the parent article rather than being broken out it'd be easier to get an overview of where the church operates. I don't see any need for redirects, as someone searching for "Northern/Southern Diocese" is unlikely to be looking for this church. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free Church of England. Per Adam Sampson, the church is notable, the individual dioceses not. There is simply no need to split out the information about the northern and southern dicocese from the parent article. Anyone interested in the Free Church of England will be better served by having all the information in that article, which is well below the threshold for considering a size split. I note Adam Sampson's concern that a redirect is not needed, and a merge will leave a redirect. I believe, however, there is a small amount of mergeable information, and keeping the edit history is then the right thing to do. Should another primary topic of Northern diocese emerge, the redirect could be overwritten with the new primary topic, but edit history would still be preserved. Thus I believe merge is the most sensible outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Belizón Tocino

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Spain. CptViraj (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for the following reasons:
- First off, as for sources, there are there are none; zero, zilch, nada, nothing. When I bothered to look this person up, I can find almost no information beyond websites either mirroring or clearly parroting the information stated in the article.
- Second, as for the content of the article, it is abysmal. It's more hagiography than it is biography. Starting off only two sentences in, a reader is confronted with promotional B.S. such as the following: "He was born in a humble family and showed good skills for drawing since he was a child.". This is as clear an illustration of the self-made man trope as there may ever be.
- Third, as far as the edit history of this article, there appears no indication it will ever be improved. The original editor (from 2009) who created the article, appears to have created an account solely to create this article and has never edited since. The rest of the edits are all minor things like moving categories.
Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding RS online for the information presented in this article. Fails WP:ARTIST. The Spanish version of this article is also completely unsourced. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Warning (band). Owen× ☎ 20:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Villarreal

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

See also the article’s Talk page. This should be a basic redirect to The Warning (band) but I suspect it will be contested so I’m bringing it here for consensus. I am very familiar with The Warning and wrote a sizeable chunk of their article, but Alejandra simply has not achieved any individual notability outside of the band, per the requirements of WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:NOTINHERITED. This article merely repeats info from the band article plus some fan trivia, and rather desperately tries to beef things up with more trivia about her gear. Note that Alejandra’s sister/bandmate Paulina Villarreal also has her own article, but that one is a bit stronger because Paulina has earned notice from pro drumming publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mexico. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stand and not be deleted.

Just because a musician is known for being a member of a band should not regulate them the band's article only.

This article should stand as a marker to add notes to, concerning further achievements Alejandra will make in the future. 174.165.130.146 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "WP" policies linked above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that, to date, Alejandra has only achieved success in collaboration with her sisters. Deleting this page, removes any place for specific personal and equipment information which would not be appropriate in a band page. Phil1107 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is self-contradictory, because if she has no individual achievements then that's exactly why she shouldn't have her own article. Calling for an article that only contains non-notable trivia for possible future purposes violates several different policies that can be found at WP:NOT. The discussion at Talk:Alejandra Villarreal shows much better awareness of the relevant policies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. toweli (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The article reads like a fan site, noting the specific guitars used for specific performances as if they have great historical significance. She didn't use the Hendrix 'Star-Spangled Banner' guitar at the opening of the Woodstock II. The entry contains excess unattributed trivial knowledge. I agree with nom, does not meet WP:BANDMEMBER, and lacks WP:SIGCOV. —Ventric (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Following the advice of a participant and closing this AFD, which started on August 24th, as "No consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Stephen Curry

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections sourced primarily to non-secondary sources such as the AI website StatsMuse and Basketball Reference. As such, this is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the most pertient info is already found in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of what is in the article should go but there are sources out there that specifically discuss Curry's career achievements such as from Sky Sports and NBC Sports. Whether it is enough for a standalone article, I'll let others decide. Alvaldi (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some relevant policies are WP:INDISCRIMINATE:
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
WP:NOTSTATS:
Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.
The article lacks the context that those policies expect to put the collection of bullet items into perspective for the reader.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AI site StatMuse is cited almost 200 times on the page. Consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 400 § StatMuse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Statmuse is that the site is not reliable and the AI nature of the site amounts to WP:OR, as the editor enters queries to get results from a WP:PRIMARY source database. Per the WP:SECONDARY policy:
Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.
—Bagumba (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a recent related AfD on a Hall of Famer who transcends basketball that was closed as "delete".—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the page again, I went on to delete large chunks of trivial content that lacked merit and/or were unsubstantiated. All StatMuse references and any inferable content from sites such as ClutchPoints and Basketball Reference (database-searched content) have also been removed to retain credibility and avoid the violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Furthermore, franchise and college-based records have been tabulated to enhance readability. It is fair to say that the current version is far sleeker and concrete with credible citations (with the exception of a handful of records which I am in the process of finding the right sources for). As the page's latest version also shows, Curry has an extensive list of notable records and milestones. Incorporating them in one page seems like a more organised and logical approach to me. In addition, it is common knowledge that Curry, like Bryant and James, is generally considered an all-time great with a significant impact on the sport. However, the achievements pages of the latter-two (Bryant's and James') have a wide range of unverified content, particularly Bryant's, that still stand without any corrections being made. The notion of whether Curry warrants a standalone records page may not seem like a "no-brainer", but its closure seems unjustified if each factor in this comment is considered in totality.—Beemer03 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Treating this on its individual merits and making no comparison with the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar discussion. On balance, this subject is a desirable and valid WP:SPINOFF; desirable because the corresponding section of the main Stephen Curry article is very long; and valid because I can find existing references which discuss his achievements and records in a standalone manner [12] [13]. Most comments above represent problems which can and should be solved by improvement, not deletion. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTEVERYTHING is my biggest concern with this page:
Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
Then there is WP:NOTSTATS and the lack of commentary. Curry's impact on changing basketball by dominating as a smaller player with 3-point shooting is the bigger story. The slew of records feel secondary, and the niche ones that involves multiple conditions (e.g. "Oldest player in NBA history to average over 30 points per game through the first 10 games of a season") feel especially trivial. How many get historically mentioned years after the actual game? But with data and technology, these are available and oft-mentioned during and after a game. Beemer03 had been working to pare the cruft from the page. I think it will take some time to make the necessary editorial decisions on what should be on this page, and then decide if the remaining content is worthy of a standalone page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: then perhaps draftify is the way to go for now? And maybe the page can be restored to mainspace if there's consensus at a relevant centralized venue like WT:NBA. Left guide (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few points at WP:DRAFTNO suggest not draftifying. I don't see any gross policy violations that compel me to !vote to draftify. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus through this whole process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:: I'm content to have this close as a "no consensus", freeing further discussion from the time constraints imposed by an AfD. You can consider me a procedural weak delete if that will make it happen. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this source from Fadeaway World which offers thorough in-depth secondary analysis of Curry's key career achievements. Left guide (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fadeaway World might not be reliable per related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders. At any rate, the discussion here is more about whether a dedicated page is needed, not necessarily the topic's notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability:
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
As we pare the page's trivial bullet items, this will become easier to determine. —Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion. But other than the VAGUEWAVE by the clearly canvassed/sock accounts, there is no opposition to deletion. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hosenul Islam

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

Unable to find reliable, significant sources, I previously suggested the author to submit the article through AfC. He then moved it to the Draft space, but now he has moved it back to the main space without getting it reviewed through AfC, which is not mandatory. The article does not cite reliable sources. Blog posts, user-generated articles like Medium, and similar platforms are unreliable. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 18:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 18:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because references are given from islampidia.org and other websites besides medium.শাকিল শাওন (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is by a Bangladeshi civil servant, an academic and human rights activist. Credible sources are cited. Also reference is given to a news website called IP Bangla. This proves the reliable and significant of this article. So I think this article should not be deleted.শাকিল শাওন (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@শাকিল শাওন, if you can provide the sources you think are reliable in this thread specifically, that will be of help to other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering sorry, but I cannot understand your world. মোঃ আহসান হাবিব রিফাত (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the best sources you've used, that would help show us notability? That's what aslivering is asking about. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gsearch is straight to social media, no hits in Gnews. Sources now in the article are as explained in the nomination. This just isn't a notable individual, as shown by the lack of any kinds of acceptable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 19:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t Delete There are many citation to show notability. শাকিল শাওন(talk) 03:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t Delete Credible sources are cited.This proves the reliable and significant of this article. Ahrbot(talk) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some meat-puppetry occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Already reported. GrabUp - Talk 04:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per nom, I have deleted this article from several wikis. Possible cross-wiki abuse. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to have made no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gölcük Plateau

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

I found a cite https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/EN-348122/picnic-spots.html but that seems to be İzmir not Konya Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Asus ZenFone. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asus ZenUI

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

Not every single piece of technology is notable, and the fact that this article has been on Wikipedia for ten years without a single independent reliable source attached suggests this is not notable tech. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asus ZenFone and the WaveShare UI stuff to Asus Fonepad, the most notable gadgets taht seem to use this software. Article fails notability per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As above, in isolation it is not notable but it should be included in an existing article in Wikipedia somewhere. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Mountain (film)

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead films must show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in third-party reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to the filmmaker's own self-published content about it, and makes absolutely no notability claim (awards, etc.) above and beyond "film that exists". And even on a WP:BEFORE search, I mostly found more primary sources -- all I found for GNG-worthy reliable source coverage was two hits in the local media of the city where the director was living at the time, of the "local man tries to make film" and "local man screens film locally" varieties, which is not enough by itself in the absence of any wider attention. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Nepal, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tibetan-language films: a list that needs expansion and update (it stops in 2007 and the entry should be added); other sources exist to allow verification. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 14:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, barely meet WP:GNG. Esthersp (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Venezuelan blackouts. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Venezuela's power outages

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

Article already exists under 2024 Venezuelan blackouts. cyrfaw (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, South America, and Venezuela. cyrfaw (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just blank-and-redirect it? I don't see why this had to go to AfD. C F A 💬 16:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Venezuelan blackouts per CFA. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Venezuelan blackouts would indeed be the wisest solution here. We don't need duplicate pages containing the same information. TH1980 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Net

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a WP:BEFORE (a bit tricky since the Packers dominated my search results) , I found this, which has a bit of information dedicated to Elliot Christenson and has a bit about Green Bay Net, but other than that there aren't enough sources to establish notability. The USNEWS source actually has SIGCOV but I can't access the other two sources cited in the article. Either way, there aren't enough reliable sources to establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this company page fails to meet WP:NCORP while most of its references are only of superficial nature and fail per WP:ORGTRIV. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence

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

This list has a finite boundary, which is a good thing, but I cannot see that this is a notable intersection. From that perspective I feel it fails WP:NLIST. At the very least it deserves the community's scrutiny. I feel the History section is valid. this, if the outcome is to delete I feel this shoudl be migrated, probably précised, in to a new article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Schools, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are Poor, unreliable, bare url links and page not found links. Page has no indepth coverage on the list of Engineering colleges and fails general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging the History section elsewhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge the history section into History_of_education_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Engineering? There's not much detail there at the moment. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not agree with Merging anything from History because the large portion of it is unsourced and the few that are sourced (4 sources), 1 is a bare url link, 2 is a primary website of the college itself and not secondary independent source. 3 is also primary and just a notification signed by the Registrar and does not cover the larger paragraph on the wiki page. Source is about the name change of institution and that is it. Source 4 has no such backing on page that "In 1947 when India became independent, there were 36 institutions for first-degree engineering education, with an annual intake of about 2500 students." Page 199 to 201 of the source from 1962, there is just a table of some engineering and technology institutes teaching various subjects and very likely the wikieditor probably just counted the table to 36 and wrongly called it total number of engineering colleges in and the source says that from these colleges maybe 2500 students took engineering subjects. Source and the comment on the page do not match. RangersRus (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness (upcoming film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to be exempted from the main notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
There are just six footnotes here, of which two are the self-published Instagram posts of one of the producers, one is a press release self-published by a funding body, and one is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a "submitted article" (i.e. really just another press release) about the overall film and television industry in the region where this film was shot, none of which are support for notability.
That leaves just two hits that actually represent reliable and GNG-building coverage about this film, which is not enough coverage to exempt a film from the standard film notability criteria -- the special WP:NFF criteria require a lot of production coverage, not just one or two hits.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this gets released and starts generating reviews by professional film critics, but two hits of production coverage is not enough to already justify an article now. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release--and reviews--come in. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or draftify;; opposed to deletion given existing coverage and notable cast (production, premise and cast are verifiable and this is a good start). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than just two hits of coverage to make a film notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is a nice start, but we need to think of this as less "this will release" and more "what if it never releases". If the film were to get indefinitely shelved then we have to consider if the article would pass NFILM based on its current coverage. Unfortunately it doesn't at this point in time. At present there is no set release date, so it could release this year or it could release two years from now. Or not at all. It could also be quietly released and gain no reviews. It wouldn't be the first film to receive this treatment, particularly in the horror/thriller genres. I do think that the article is a good start and it would be a shame to lose the work, so I support anyone who wants to take the article on as a draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Malware#Antivirus / Anti-malware software. ✗plicit 02:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Subversion Software

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

No RS found that uses this specific terminology to describe this class of software. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand more on my rationale, I'm aware (and not doubting the fact) that cybersecurity software exists that does this exact thing. However, there is literally no RS that calls it "anti-subversion software". Sohom (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malware#Antivirus_/_Anti-malware_software: unless a better target can be found. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as it is an obvious hoax, and maybe redirect it to the antivirus page. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Wikipedia appears to be the primary source for this term, which is never a good sign. Brandon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards. Star Mississippi 14:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

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

Subject appears to fail GNG, one source is Fandom and the other is a fan site. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fancruft or Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards as others suggest KylieTastic (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards where the topic is already covered as WP:Alternative to deletion. The topic does appear in secondary sources, but as far as I have seen in a limited way which fails to provide encyclopedic commentary. The content we have here could most likely all be verified by primary and secondary sources (like this web article or this book), so I think would be good if this would be preserved in the history for possible future use, and the redirect itself would be both helpful in searching and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards per WP:CHEAP. The topic does not pass the WP:GNG and the only source being used is another Wiki. But as stated above, it is already mentioned at the target article so a Redirect would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards, this subject lacks coverage in reliable sources where it is the focus.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here for no particular reason, agreed that redirect sounds better, and seems to be the consensus here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per all. Redirects are cheap, per WP:ATD. Does not have enough coverage for its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Jubba Airways Fokker 50 crash

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways crash

Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways Fokker 50 crash (2nd nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find (including Somali sources), only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Whilst there exists this news article dating from November 2022, there is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the accident making it a primary source. Additionally, lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTNEWS, no secondary sources cited only primary and tertiary sources. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, scheduled passenger flight crashes at an airport and burns up meets longstanding notability standards on Wikipedia. The fact that it happened in a country where local news sources are not in English or online makes it more difficult to research an article, but does not change the underlying notability. The fact that the passengers were successfully evacuated without death does not make it non-notable. (Copied and pasted from the first AFD attempt on this article, it still applies today). RecycledPixels (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly mentioned a "longstanding notability standard" in numerous AfDs without providing an actual guideline or policy, what "notability standard" are you talking about? Limited coverage in english sources or "being difficult to research" are neither excuses or arguments since even Somali sources don’t demonstrate the article’s notability. Just because an accident happened does not make it automatically notable.

Notability is based on available evidence. WP:GNG states that "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Evidence suggests that primary sources seem to be the only coverage existing. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events such as accidents that were (widely) reported at the time are usually not notable unless something gives them additional enduring significance, which there really isn't so I'm not sure about what "underlying notability" you are talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed it with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angara Airlines Flight 200. You disagreed with me at that discussion, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time going back and forth with you trying to change your mind, but I will raise the issue at AFDs where you continue to ignore community consensus about certain event articles. This community consensus is that there is a presumption of notability about certain types of airline crash articles, within certain fairly narrow parameters that were pointed out to you in that other AFD discussion. I doubt that you speak Somali, I doubt that you have the ability to research offline Somali news archives, and I doubt that an Internet news search, especially if it's done in English (which is not what I'm accusing you of) of an event that occurred in certain developing nations without much of an Internet presence or users is going to adequately reflect the amount of independent coverage that an event receives, which is why I mentioned the country where it occurred, and is why certain presumptions of notability (notability guidelines are some, community consensus are others) is important when making decisions of whether articles should be deleted based on GNG, NOTNEWS, and EVENTCRIT. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that I'm supposedly ignoring a fabricated community consensus is quite laughable and is quite the accusation to throw. Those parameters were, in my opinion, quite cherry picked since they were only articles that were kept. I could also list those that were deleted such as: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9] and so on and so forth. So the idea that there is a community consensus is quite questionable.

WP:GNG states that, "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." You can presume that the article is notable, presume that coverage certainly exists, but those are not guarantees of notability, merely assumptions. If offline secondary sources exist, then I might reconsider, but without much evidence, such a claim doesn't hold much value. Translating and searching a topic in Somali is quite easy, I've done my part which was to search for the existence of sources, after that, it is no longer up to me to find if they exist or not. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll notice that I didn't comment on any of those deletion nominations, which is a clear sign that I didn't object to their deletions, usually because they didn't fit into that narrow area of presumed notability. I couldn't tell you that with 100% certainty because the articles have been deleted, but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts daily update is on my watchlist and I pretty reliably look at it most days. I might miss a couple, but not many. When I see a deletion nomination that I think is wrong, I usually comment on it, unless it's already a snow keep by the time I see it. If I don't think it should be kept, I don't comment on it. Common events like runway overruns, or engine mishaps, or someone with explosive diarrhea on an airplane get deleted all the time without my objection. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't vouch for the 2019 AFDs either because that looks like it was before I was involved in this topic area. Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Air Flight 293 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60 were the first AFDs I was involved with in this topic area, later that year. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the article, is it’s a clear WP:NOTNEWS violation. Maybe if there is more secondary sources it will be notable, but sadly not. Protoeus (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba Ronu

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

This is very much in alignment of WP:NOTNEO. This NPOV-violating article fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revamp — I'm unsure if it fits entirely with WP:NOTNEO as the term has significantly increased in usage and discussion over the last two years. However, it is clear that this user — a likely sockpuppet of a user blocked for ethnically-biased edits — does not intend to add to an encyclopedia with this article. The article lacks nuance, not even mentioning how the term has been used as a bigoted rallying cry recently. Overall, it should either be deleted or completely overhauled. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ethnically biased article that was probably created due to the administration of Bola Tinubu's government and his supporters, does not meet WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion.

Jõsé^hola 02:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Borgo Press as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos Books

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the company in reliable sources. The only source in the article is a database listing. The article was created by someone who described themselves as "one of the editors at Xenos Books". toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Borgo Press, of which this was an associated imprint. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the publisher's notability --Loewstisch (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loewstisch you voted keep but your words don't indicate that. Did you mean a merge or a delete vote? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I mean delete vote, thank you for your correction Loewstisch (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete if it be confusing to redirect when Borgo Press doesn't mention Xenos Books). Checking NewspaperArchive and ProQuest I was able to turn up two one-sentence passing mentions. From a 1993 book review: "While the publisher, tiny Xeros Books of Riverside, Calif., struggles to bring out 2,000 more copies...". From a 1995 publishing industry event: "Xenos Books, a small house that publishes a variety of subjects, will be represented by editor Karl Kvitko." This does not sigcov make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Borgo Press as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Shearman

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

Proposed deletion tag removed on the basis of "several sources" being present. This consists of two primary sources from the British government, an entry in the unreliable Who's Who, the subjects Twitter page and a brief mention of his appointments in a list of British diplomats. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Uganda, and Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 of the 3 provided sources are primary. Could not find significant third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CVO, a high honour which has generally been considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. They're not handed out in cereal packets. A handful are awarded every year. Confirmation that he was appointed CVO in 2003. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO provides a "likely" indication of notability provided sufficient in-depth secondary sources are available. As made clear, with regards to WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not exempt a subject from the sourcing test. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also taking a look at your own chart, of the last five AfDs, just one had a clear "keep" result. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? As far as I'm concerned it's clear WP:COMMONSENSE that anyone considered notable enough by the British Government to receive a high honour (one to two hundred every year in a country of 67 million) should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. They're not selected at random. They're selected because they're already notable. That's the point of ANYBIO #1, to catch people who are clearly notable but not widely covered in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government honouring a government official is hardly a compelling indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. He's not a historic figure. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (my mistake in this instance), the government didn't. The Royal Victorian Order is in the gift of the sovereign, not the government. The vast majority of government officials do not receive high honours; only a small minority. So yes, it's still a good indication of notability. If he's "already notable" then sources meeting WP:BASIC would be easily locatable. I'm sure you're very well aware that that's not really the case. The media generally has little interest in diplomats. Once again, that's largely the point of ANYBIO #1. It balances out people who are notable in real if not especially sexy jobs against media obsession with pop cultural figures. If clauses like this didn't exist then Wikipedia would become ever more focused on pop culture and even less on being a proper encyclopaedia. It's heading in that direction now, sadly, and nominations like this just speed up the rot. He's not a historic figure is a meaningless statement, especially given he's still alive. What does that mean? I assume it simply means you don't think he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean he's not a historic figure for whom it is difficult to locate sources. It is quite common for British diplomats to receive honours. I don't think it gives them all a free pass from WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only a small minority of diplomats receive high honours (i.e. CBE and above), especially in the modern day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to have a look at some British ambassadors to see whether this is accurate. Surprise, surprise, it wasn't. Menna Rawlings, ambassador to France, DCMG CVO. Karen Pierce, ambassador to the US, DCMG. Nigel Casey, ambassador to Russia, CMG MVO. Julia Longbottom, ambassador to Japan, CMG. Jill Gallard, ambassador to Germany, CMG CVO. Martin Harris, ambassador to Ukraine, OBE CMG. Alex Ellis, ambassador to Spain, KCMG. Notice a peculiar pattern here? A walled garden of articles, some with zero secondary sources (completely unacceptable for a BLP), of British diplomats awarded honours by their employer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) The consensus has been that being posted in several places as ambassador is notable; in his case, three. 2) The CVO doesn’t confer automatic notability, but is evidence therefor. 3) He was the British ambassador to Belgium, a longtime ally. 4) The sources are not all great, but they don’t have to be - significant coverage is all that we require - and AfD is not the place to fix articles. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus has been that being posted in several places as ambassador is notable; in his case, three" Absolutely not true. You're inventing notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EverGirl

AfDs for this article:

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

Nomination for 100.7.34.111:

Single-paragraph, seven-sentence, four-reference stub discussing a non-notable, long-since-defunct, and completely forgotten children's lifestyle brand.

C F A 💬 13:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Products, and Popular culture. C F A 💬 13:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brookman, Faye (2004-05-21). "Kohl's tween offering". Women's Wear Daily: 9. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "Kohl's, as reported, is introducing a collection of licensed clothing, through its 590 doors based on Nickelodeon's everGirl this summer in time for back-to-school. But the expanding effort will also include cosmetics and accessory items. The everGirl collection will vie with other properties such as Bratz and Stuff by Hilary Duff for the hearts and purse strings of young girls. ... EverGirl is a lifestyle brand for tween girls ages 8 to 14 centered around four ethnically diverse characters -- Joy, Hope, Starr and Skye. Young girls were introduced to the property with a Web site in January complete with games and an "ever scope" where they determine which of the four girl's personalities is the best fit with theirs. The site also features animated stories about the girls as they live their dreams. There are more than one million registered users, ages 8 to 15, who have already taken the ever scope quiz."
2. Marlowe, Chris (2004-04-26). "'Ren,' 'everGirl' ring up diverse mobile products". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 383, no. 30. p. 8. ProQuest 2470944256.
  The article notes: "Taking "everGirl" mobile called for personalization products such as icons and ring tones, however T'Ren,' 'everGirl' ring up diverse mobile TL more than 550,000 primarily tween girls registered to peruse its offers for personal exploration, pop music and branded accessories. It was co-created by Angela Santomero, who also was co-creator of "Blue's Clues," and until now only existed online and on T-shirts."
3. Sherman, Jay (2004-01-05). "Nick Puts Muscle Behind everGirl". TelevisionWeek. Vol. 23, no. 1. p. 3. EBSCOhost 11947167.
  The article notes: "Starting this month Nick Enterprises is debuting everGirl, a lifestyle brand aimed at the so-called tween girl set, ages 8 to 14. Using as its foundation a line of apparel sold at Kohl's department stores, a Web site with an animated collection of ethnically diverse young girls and a theme song and all-girl band Play, everGirl is being touted as a brand aimed at promoting self-esteem, creative expression and self-discovery. ... The launch of everGirl is part of a broader strategy at Nick Enterprises to have a presence in virtually every medium targeting children, using original creative properties when appropriate."
4. Verndon, Joan (2004-06-11). "Barbie gets a perfume, Skittles get a lipstick". The Record. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Nickelodeon is using its television and media clout to build a new clothing and "lifestyle" brand targeted at "tween" girls, ages 8-14, called "everGirl." It launched an everGirl Web site in January that received one million visitors in the first month it was online. And it has an exclusive deal with Kohl's to sell a line of everGirl clothes and accessories that will arrive in stores in July."
5. Luna, Nancy (2005-02-22). "O.C. in thick of toy action". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.
  The article notes: "Ages: 4 and up; Price: $7.99 to $9.99; Availability: June everGirl Fun Factor: This line of 12 dolls competes with the popular Bratz brand. These pre-teen lifestyle dolls are designed to resemble a real "tween" girl. Each girl boasts different clothes to match personality styles, which range from preppy to bohemian."
6. Buckingham, Jane Rinzler (2004-01-22). "everGirl gives tweens another stylish doll". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The latest to join the crowd is Nickelodeon's everGirl. The brand features four diverse friends named Hope, Joy, Starr and Skye, all with styles and ambitions similar to today's tweens. The brand's goal is to boost tween girls' self-esteem by promoting creativity, individuality and personal expression. The first contact tweens will have with everGirl is the Web site, ever girl.com, which is filled with games, activities and animated episodes starring the everGirl characters. March will usher in the release of an official everGirl song, performed by the all-girl band PLAY. And Kohl's will be selling an exclusive line of everGirl accessories, dolls and apparel starting in July."
7. Steinbock, Dan (2005). The Mobile Revolution: The Making of Mobile Services Worldwide. London: Kogan Page. p. 214. ISBN 0-7494-4296-4. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "With the transition from voice to data services, particularly interactive messaging, the youthful adopters have grown, well, ever younger! Take, for instance, Nickelodeon’s everGirl, which integrates a website, pop music and a customized line of apparel and accessories to create a healthy lifestyle brand that allows tween girls to explore who they are and what they want to become."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow everGirl 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) 08:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company is defunct but Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources, but also flawed nomination which appeared to focus on editorial issues which can be addressed. Defunct and forgotten are similarly not grounds for deletion. Star Mississippi 13:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Hamilton (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Also delete incoming redirects Caroline Hamilton and Caroline Hamilton (disambiguation): no subject in enwiki is known by that name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with incoming redirects. The ref "Clarke, Frances (2009). "Hamilton (Tighe), (Marianne) Caroline". In McGuire, James; Quinn, James (eds.). Dictionary of Irish Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press." shows that "Caroline Hamilton" is needed. PamD 08:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found more entries which meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. There are also several partial matches which are ambiguous so this page is WP:USEFUL to readers. 7 entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems to be in good shape now. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Nom 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 05:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (confectionery)

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

Article is a WP:PROMO. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products. References are WP:ROUTINE. Charlie (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Charlie (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my analysis of the sources says it has only trivial mentions in reliable and unreliable sources --美しい歌 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Sharma

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a martial artist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for martial artists. As always, martial artists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about this person, there's a Para-olympian with the same name that gets a bit of coverage [14]. This martial artist isn't notable and has a lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martial arts rank does not determine notability nor does training under unnamed "various world’s renowned and best Karate and kobudo sensei." None of the coverage shown is from independent sources nor did my search did find multiple examples of significant independent coverage of him that would show he meets WP:GNG. In addition, there's no evidence he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a well know and prominent figure in India for teaching authentic Japanese martial arts. Also a primary source for Shitoryu. We would not advise that the article should be deleted. Wikipedia as important source for information and if this article is deleted then it will leave Indian people hard to find information authentic teachers of Japanese martial arts. NOT SUGGESTED FOR deletion. Kyoshins (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources about the stuff he did in media and books fully independent of his own self-published web presence", of which this article cites none. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and explanation by Papaursa. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Lekkha Moun (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sherriff

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The subject lacks such coverage. Two sources are currently present, one which is a primary source and another which is a very brief and routine piece about her appointment. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Belgium, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources in Google news yields just 1 hit. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, lacks notability and WP:RS citations and media coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Jones (British diplomat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but should have closed as delete given AfD is not a simple headcount, with strength of argument supposed to account for something. Two editors favoured deleting, and two favoured keeping (including the creator, who cited the unreliable Who's Who as a keep rationale). Source analysis in previous AfD established Jones lacks significant coverage specifically about him in multiple published secondary sources and therefore fails WP:BASIC. The current article has not been improved since last AfD and instead still consists of three sources which do not contribute to notability. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and do not get a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this which doesn't look too bad but I don't really know how it works for ambassadors. There may be more but I am unsure what exactly counts for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Still not done searching but there isn't nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are good as well. This is also a bit helpful but not as much. I was able to find this from just Switzerland and I didn't even try to search for the other places. Again, not very experienced with ambassadors, but I think this is GNG now, especially with the the Le Temps source which is the Romandy's newspaper of record. So keep.

@CFA Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good to me. Thanks for finding those. Keep. C F A 💬 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank only Switzerland's inexplicably well digitized press. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source above is good, but I couldn't find anything else. Ambassadors have to meet WP:NBASIC like everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage exists ~~but I'm inclined to delete unless some is found.~~ C F A 💬 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage found provides enough coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX There are three keep votes and no deletes. Is that not enough consensus? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, has AusLondonder turned into chopped liver while I wasn't looking? Either way, I don't see any reason to hurry. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expand and maintain, just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases. Alon9393 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by " just expand your trajectory and your relevance increases"? It doesn't make sense is arguing for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar Richard Jones has notoriety, as ambassador of the EU and Great Britain, he only needs expansionism and more reliable sources. Alon9393 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: I think enough coverage is found.Santoshsah4 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ambassadors of the European Union#Switzerland. The sources that have been found do not meet NBASIC (and as has been noted, ambassadors are not inherently notable). They are all reporting on what Jones himself has said at a various press conferences about EU policy toward Switzerland. That is not significant coverage of Jones himself. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable (Who's Who and Gulabin.com [an SPS]) or routine announcements about the ambassador being posted to Switzerland and his retirement. I have been unable to find additional sources that provide significant coverage of this diplomat. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. I’m actually leaning to a weak delete, but I’m equally inclined that he could become notable. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Găleșanu

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

There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some reviews/critical discussion in Romanian sources [15] and [16], might be more in Romanian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two links is to the introduction of his book, so not exactly impartial. 161.132.213.116 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the creator has been locked for UPE; this article therefore might need significant cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair King-Smith

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All three sources are primary and do not contribute to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Albania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. An article can't be based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see most editors agreeing with the deletion nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

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

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[17] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [18] and [19] and [20] and [21]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [22] + [23]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[24] + [25]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[26] + [27]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MasterofRepulse has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not the blocked editor you accused him of being a sock of. Again, let's keep this out of AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could only find trivial namedrops in books. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The source genuinely incline the subject sustainably prior to the broader spectrum of historical event took place in Punjab convicting Battle of Rumal and numerously mentioned on various intermediating topics so in this case deletion is unnecessary for sure 14.247.79.217 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC) blocked open proxy-[28][reply]
Delete as per nomination. No significant coverage. NorthSiderRock (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring opinions from accounts with few edits, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the article has very little sources with no significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this article lacks notability. Wikipedia:Notability
Think if I seen more adequate coverage of this event, then I may change my vote. Until then, delete. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist in hopes of establishing some sort of consensus, which at present appears lacking. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Petrovský

AfDs for this article:

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

This Slovak men's footballer, who seems to have never played in any European top-tier clubs, was deemed non-notable back in 2015 AfD discussion. I have searched his name in conjunction with *any club he has played for* and "site:.sk", but couldn't find any significant coverage that would suggest he is now notable per WP:GNG only, as NFOOTBALL no longer exists. The best secondary source I found was AktualitySK, which only mentions Petrovský in an image caption when he played for Skalica in 2016. Excluding database sources, I only found namesakes and a lot of hits about the unrelated ice hockey player Servac Petrovský. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Denmark–Ukraine relations. ✗plicit 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Copenhagen

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

Mainly based on primary sources and fails WP:ORG. Sources 3-10 merely confirm former ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denmark–Ukraine relations. Uffda608 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Denmark, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Denmark–Ukraine relations: as we normally do with such articles when the embassy itself is not notable. Owen× ☎ 13:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Şefik Pasha

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

Surprisingly the Turkish article also has no sources. As a fair number of Turkish editors are interested in history I thought better to open for discussion rather than “prod”. Is he notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick search returns quite a few sources [29][30] Overall, there's significant coverage of him. It's a pity the article has stayed unsourced for almost 16 years. Aintabli (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aintabli. Satisfies WP:GNG, as a general usually will. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No encyclopedic relevance or sources demonstrating the slightest of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chulo Magazine

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

Reviewed for NPP. No independent sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. C F A 💬 16:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources added. Xegma(talk) 17:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia–United Kingdom relations which preserves the history if there's desire to merge sourced information Star Mississippi 12:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations. Both articles are short and the target is helped by the source. Why wasn't this ATD proposed upfront? gidonb (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gidonb. I'm not sure why these articles persist in being nominated at AfD when the can and should be merged and/or redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLAR: An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. Given you and the over AfD participant seem to prefer merging over redirecting, sending this to AfD seems to me like the right call. Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge because the target article has zero secondary sources, no encyclopedic content and should be deleted. No secondary sources at this page either. By the way, AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss merging or redirecting. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Merge this article but now there is opposition to that closure so I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get to a consensus. Would folks accept a Redirect instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Important article about a notable building in Bratislava. Cantab12 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet a notability guideline? Where are the sources to back your claims? LibStar (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations, or just redirect. There is very little content. Slovakia–United Kingdom relations is a notable topic so there is no reason to delete it. AfD is appropriate for redirecting, but merging should be discussed at WP:PM. C F A 💬 16:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Bhutta

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

I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete need more sources and specially "Career" section is mostly unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. A case has been made that more sources sufficient to meet BLP requirements can be found with more time. Star Mississippi 13:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this which is fairly in-depth. There's also this, this, and some other routine coverage. Likely not enough to meet WP:NBASIC but I would not be surprised if there was more coverage out there. I just don't know where to look or how to read Japanese. C F A 💬 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Mizuki Otake have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher. More source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. NBAD is irrelevant when NSPORT itself is not met. The Hochi link does seem to cover her playing beyond the one tournament, but it is not enough to overcome the stricter SIGCOV requirements in place for high school-age athletes (which she was at the time). Draftifying might give people a bit more time to find more recent sources. The other two links identified above are pretty routine tournament recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them.

If you disagree with WP:NBAD, then think it would be better to get a consensus to change the guideline itself instead of arguing for selective circumvention. DCsansei (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Tanioka

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker identifies this as a post office and this 1915 county history identifies it as a station on the old C&EI where there was a mill. That's what it looks like on the maps too: a rail point without a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a station, not a settlement, as per the source cited by nom. Stations and other railroad infrastructure are subject to WP:GNG, and a brief mention in a century-old history doesn't count as significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Miyu Takahashi have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NBAD is subordinate to the higher requirements of NSPORT, including SPORTCRIT, which demands an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Routine event recaps don't count towards notability, and we don't have evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT through any other coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them. DCsansei (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to WiSolar. Star Mississippi 13:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Irims

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2021 due to a lack of notability. Not sure if he meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WiSolar: Found only this GNG-worthy piece here but one is not enough. If anyone finds more please ping me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Found some of his profile here [31] and another with Business Insider outlet [32] @Vanderwaalforces:Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055 Thanks for the ping. I saw these, they do not count towards GNG, they fail WP:INDEPENDENT as they are clearly interviews with the subject of this article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VanderwaalforcesYea, they fail GNG. They are just profiles and they are not independent. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having edited the Wisolar article on English Wikipedia, I got to know that the deletion of this article is currently being discussed. On WP:GNG, this 1 and 2 should suffice for the keeping of the article. Thank you. Bukky658 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bukky658 The first source you mentioned fails to provide WP:SIGCOV directly on the subject, while the second source fails WP:INDEPENDENCE, which is the major issue with all the sources I have found. They just do not count towards GNG based on this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WiSolar: The subject is not independently notable on its own per a WPBEFORE I’ve made. Redirecting is the best WP:ATD here. Best, Reading Beans 07:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to West African Football Union#Defunct competitions. where it can be added. If it is not done in sufficient time, RFD can handle this Star Mississippi 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAFU U20 Women's Cup

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – Abandoned article, it talks about a first edition in 2022 and which was not carried out. Svartner (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Africa, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Senegal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West African Football Union#Defunct competitions as possible search term. GiantSnowman 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect sounds fine to me too. Svartner (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect proposal above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a tournament of this name is not mentioned at West African Football Union#Defunct competitions, so no need for a redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can just be added. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the event ever happen? If not, it isn't defunct, but rather a proposed tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Democratic National Convention as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic National Convention

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

I am unsure as to whether there are enough sources to justify the existence of this article at this juncture. PlateOfToast (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON. What's the point of having an article filled with "TBD" and routine media speculation about potential bids? AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is already a planned bid from Nashville, and the "media speculation" from Chicago comes from a direct quote by Governor JB Pritzker (who was a major player in selecting the 2024 convention). The event is essentially guaranteed to happen, more media coverage will roll in as the date approaches Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. All the article contains at the moment is speculation about cities that might bid. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democratic National Convention. This is WP:TOOSOON but at some point in the next couple of years there will be enough sources. Any verifiable information about the 2028 convention could be added to the general Democratic National Convention page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect would be the best path forward here. PlateOfToast (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democratic National Convention as a viable ATD per Enos733. Sal2100 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common technical regulation

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

Unreferenced since 2009, no apparent WP:GNG emerges from the article. BEFORE in GS shows some uses, but nothing that suggests stand-alone notability (WP:SIGCOV). No idea where this could be redirected, although WP:ATD-R is always an acceptable alternative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Europe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexis Strum

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			little content outside of fluff and quotes	✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023.	~	WP:METRO		✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	written by Strum	~		✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end.	✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum	?	~	✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	mostly quotes from Strum	~		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and England. Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nomination for deletion.

Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.

Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria: 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'

In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer: 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.' 'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)

Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/

In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'

Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'

The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006: - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/

Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day

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

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~What's the second article then? It's not obvious from the article and your complete lack of description.~~ I see it now. I still wouldn't use AfD as an avenue as requesting a merge in the talk pages would probably be better. – The Grid (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that Kashmir Black Day and Jammu and Kashmir Black Day are two different topics. I’m unsure if Kashmir Black Day meets the WP:N but the current AFD appears unclear. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, It would be better to request a merge in that case. The article in current state appear to be related to two different observances one celebrated by Pakistan and other by India respectively. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 05:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason to merge as two different observances in two different countries. War Wounded (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is that we didn't need two articles on the same subject. But now that it's been argued that these articles cover two different subjects, are there any other valid grounds for deletion? Clearly editors are opposed to a Merge but that is not the same as arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given 4 reliable news articles covering it. Some focus more on explaining the conflict than detailing the event itself, but at least one does and all give some details on it and make arguments about its motivations. It's worth having an article on at least so that people can see what it's about if they're curious. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The sole argument for retention has been refuted. Star Mississippi 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fleeting Ends

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

Not seeing anything that would make this a pass under WP:BAND. No in depth reviews, charting records or significant awards or recognition. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure': I updated existing references and added some additional ones. It looks like the band was active 2008-2015 and then again in 2018 with Vantine and others. For the reformed band in 2018, the references I found list different people than the article originally named (I changed the article to reflect what's in the sources). The originally named people are in pictures that are part of the article but I can't find any sources that link them directly to "The Fleeting Ends". There is coverage of this band in the local Philly outlets that cover indie bands, it's more limited outside - I see some newspaper articles that announced tour dates and the Popmatters magazine article about a release in 2018. I'd rather someone with more knowledge about WP:BAND weigh in. Nnev66 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources here. In fact, NBC increases the notoriety of the article. Alon9393 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait--this? That's nothing but a video, with the video gone, from a local affiliate. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies We are in a generation of rapid consumption, of TikTok, YouTube, the video is what is produced, I don't see why it can't be there, and the quotes are from the American national network NBC. Alon9393 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The video is NOT there, and even if it were, it wouldn't mean a thing. "They appeared on TV" is not a claim to notability, certainly not if it's a local affiliate: no, it's not NBC, it's the Philadelphia affiliate, Channel 10--WCAU. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya Govindan Nair

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

I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and India. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty Seventh Edition of his book was released on the International day by the publisher who published his book nearly 4 decades ago. here is the link https://www.instagram.com/dcbooks/p/C8eOMOMyNxz/?hl=en&img_index=1 2405:201:E010:706F:F0B9:15A2:5E91:AA5B (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The article creator objects to deletion (see User talk:Versatilegeek#Nomination of Yogacharya Govindan Nair for deletion) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this comment which was placed outside the discussion so I have moved it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the objection that “there are sources” my response as nominator is that I don’t doubt that the subject is the author of multiple books. What there is not is anything that demonstrates notability. We don’t allow bio articles sourced almost entirely to online shopping sites with dead links. In addition not a single detail of the subject’s life is even verifiable based on the refs in the article or anything else I can find in English. I don’t think it’s acceptable to retain an entirely unverified bio on the strength of a claim that “there are sources.” Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article here from the Times Group, https://malayalam.samayam.com/feature/special-stories/who-was-yogacharya-govindan-nair/articleshow/101135876.cms, seems like a credible source describing the subject as the populizer of yoga in Kerala. Given the Indian context, it is not necessary that a historical subject, especially in Kerala, should be widely cited in the English media to be notable. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, sources don’t have to be in English. They can be in any language but if they exist this discussion is the place to share them. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the Malayalam samayam source mentioned by Pinknetwork123 is WP:CIRCULAR. The feature story reads exactly like it was generated from this Wikipedia article, with no new information. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not able to find any coverage in reliable sources or reviews of his books. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

An article on the same person was previously deleted (twice) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari. It is now four years later and he has been admitted to college but he has still not reached the level of adult notability for his achievements in math or physics. (See WP:PRODIGY.) CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for including the previous AFD nominations in your statement. Since the subject has already been to AFD before, Soft Deletion is not an option here. However, I think the sources have improved a lot since those 2020 AFDs so a source review would be helpful rather than just rubber-stamping the closure of the previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the advice in the essay linked in the nomination. If we're going to write about kids, we need to be careful. Relevant to the present case are the admonishments, Students are not notable prodigies for their performance as students, no matter how advanced they are in their work, and Prodigious children who demonstrate skill in mathematics or science are expected to have published works on a par with their notable adult academic peers. Another pertinent concern is the general idea of not having a whole article about a person only known for one thing. Only one event has been covered with any degree of reliability, namely his admission into NYU, and that's being very generous to the silly season reporting. On the whole, I'm just not seeing a notability case that is strong enough to outweigh the concerns here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with XOR'easter's comment Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:

whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)

how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)

the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)

whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)

how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)

whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)

Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. More participation here would help but I'm not sure if the subject area is too niche to draw in other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. And that participation is not forthcoming. It is not eligible for SOFT deletion, however no one is supporting retention. Can be treated as a PROD should an editor contest this, but there is no need for a further silent relist Star Mississippi 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's national under-18 softball team

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team

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

The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero third-party coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon video games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

I cannot find any Reception on this game. I found this TheGamer source: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemate-pokemon-go-precursor/ but it was published before TheGamer's reliability date of August 2020, meaning it provides as much notability to the subject as an average Valnet source. Beyond that, Game Rant briefly discussed it, but it also does not add to notability and is part of this listicle. I checked Japanese sources, and found only passing mentions of the game's existence, and the sources in the article are either routine coverage of the game's announcement or not enough to establish notability. There is no Reception to really build this article with. A viable AtD for this subject is the "List of Pokemon video games" article, where the subject is mentioned, in order to preserve page history. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I did find this, but it still isn't enough for GNG. It could have a brief list explanation for what it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. I'm assuming that the desired target article is List of Pokémon video games, is that correct? It helps to provide a direct link to the target article as there could be other similarly named articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made sure to state the exact article title in the nomination for clarity, but yes, List of Pokémon video games is my suggested AtD target. Admittedly unsure of how to hyperlink while using Twinkle, so apologies about that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon video games, does not do an adequate job of demonstrating notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information that is found at List of federal political scandals in the United States. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, @Goldsztajn, @Dympies, does the presence of List of federal political scandals in the United States change your analysis? - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the differences between the two. The List of federal political scandals in the United States is difficult to read, includes legislators who are not associated with presidents, and is impossible to compare across presidencies. That article also does not categorize scandals by type and excludes Criticism from former allies, excludes turnover comparison, and excludes family members category. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest there are no differences - but the way List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents is presented (to me), is very confusing and there is no information about the "controversy" and does not address the very real content concerns raised by BD2412, Goldsztajn, and Dympies. Looking at the list in the article, I do not know what "Major criticism of the President" means - does that mean the individual listed expressed concerns about the president? Also, I should be able to know at a glance why Eric Lander was part of a Biden administration scandal. I was about to say this should be TNT'd, but then I found a much more comprehensive article already written. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive in some areas but not in others. There is a real lack of discussion of presidential scandals in Wikipedia. I think given the growing power of the presidency, that we need a more coherent article to summarize the performance of presidents along these lines that is not bogged down with a massive list of congressman and judges and others that are not part of the executive branch Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a need for an article substantively focused on the performance of presidential administrations in this area (not just general occurrences in other branches coinciding with the timing of a presidential administration), and that what constitutes a "scandal" or "controversy" should be well-defined for inclusion. The latter is something missing from this article, but readily fixable within its scope. BD2412 T 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl - the only consideration is reliable sourcing - our own perceptions of the changing status of the US Presidency can't inform this discussion. @Enos733 - thanks for the ping and drawing my attention to the other article. I'm looking at this purerly from a sourcing (ie notability) perspective. For this list, I find sourcing that satisfies this specific class, but which does not statisfy a general list of federal political scandals. Looking at the federal list, notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I do not see sourcing present in that article which satisfies that specific class. Given the prominance in the sourcing assocated with Presidents, this list, at least on first glance, has a stronger founding in sourcing and thus a stronger claim for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost duplicate of List of federal political scandals in the United States. We need only one article on this topic. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. This is a WP:COATRACK and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging would be unnecessary since the content is a bit of a disaster, but regardless of the condition there's a policy basis for redirection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States, per Dclemens1971. Bothsidesism has destroyed many once reliable sources, and forks about controversies have wrecked parts of Wikipedia. A controversy about email servers versus hundreds of crimes and scandals is what has gotten us into this fine ness. No thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table tries to distinguish between scandals, indictments and felonies, unlike the List of federal political scandals in the United States. I reorganized based on the most serious first and removed Hillary Clinton (which was a borderline case that is not in the List of federal political scandals) Superb Owl (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep, Delete and Redirect. No one has mentioned this in the discussion but the article being discussed is very weighted towards the Trump administration and lighter on other administrations, does that impact the outcome participants are seeking?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to something like "Personnel scandals of President Donald Trump." The table can largely remain as a comparision to other recent presidents without worrying as much about where to stop adding the lists and redundancy with the other list of scandals. Trump takes up much of the focus of the article anyway. Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is a clear cut case of WP:COATRACK. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. "Recent U.S. Presidents" is arbitrary and will change, and thus fails WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. now divided between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. The primary sticking point between the two camps is whether or not editors believe this article is a duplicate of the target article and a COATRACK and those editors who believe it is a valid standalone list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I remember there was a policy against making articles about "recent" things. Also virtually the entire thing is about Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSpectre (talk • contribs) 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are still divided. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Almost all the prose is about Trump, with only the table covering the other presidents. Besides, the List of federal political scandals in the United States exists, so any information about presidents can be added to that article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enos733. The current version is a WP:BLP nightmare, and I don't see much worth merging into List of federal political scandals in the United States. Listing names of people with "Major criticism of the President" is questionable (why would we list the names Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky instead of linking/describing the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal?). "Family members in major roles" never explains what the controversy was. And I don't think listing dozens of living people's names, in an "Ethics / scandals" column without further context, meets the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. From what I can see, anything worth including in List of federal political scandals in the United States is already better presented there. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "Recent" is absurdly vague. Controversies must be attributed in nominal articles (Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, etc..). If there is a new election for Donald Trump, simply separate by the number in the presidential order as disambiguation. Svartner (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarre WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. We have dozens of articles covering "controversies of recent US presidents". No need to make up an arbitrary timeline to cover them together. No opposition to using some of this content in a different current/future article, of course, but you don't need consensus to do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus of participants is this article can be improved through editing, better sourcing and, perhaps, a page title change and that deletion is unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development

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

It is not at all clear what anything in this article has to do with Virtualization or "Virtualization development" which is not defined in the article or even the article it links to (which I have also opened an AFD for). This appears to mostly consist of WP:OR and I don't think there's any way of cleaning it up or establishing notability as it is completely unclear what the article is even supposed to be about. If not deleted, I believe this needs to be moved to "Timeline of computer virtualization" or something similar and will require a complete rewrite. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads like a personal analysis but AfD is not for cleanup. Orientls (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the topic of the article is itself unclear, I'm not sure how it can be cleaned up, which is why I think it just needs to be deleted. If someone wants to create a similar article in the future it would require a new name, topic, and content, hence there's no reason to preserve this. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The intent of the article is clear: a timeline of virtualization technologies, mirroring the history section of Virtualization. However, more could be done to highlight the relevance of each development to virtualization, particularly in the 60s and 70s. I think a name change could be justified ('Timeline of virtualization technology' perhaps? Compare with other related lists), and the article is currently suffering from WP:SYNTH - but there is no lack of sources on exactly this topic. Here are a couple from a preliminary search, and from the other article:

"1.1.1. Brief History of Virtualization". Oracle VM - User's Guide for Release 3.0.3. Oracle. June 2012.
"What is virtualization?". RedHat. 2 March 2018.
Linda Hammer; Ken Donoghue (2019). Virtualization (PDF) (4 ed.). For Dummies. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-119-59586-1.
Rodríguez-Haro, Fernando; Freitag, Felix; Navarro, Leandro; Hernánchez-sánchez, Efraín; Farías-Mendoza, Nicandro; Guerrero-Ibáñez, Juan Antonio; González-Potes, Apolinar (2012-01-01). "A summary of virtualization techniques". Procedia Technology. The 2012 Iberoamerican Conference on Electronics Engineering and Computer Science. 3: 267–272. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2012.03.029. ISSN 2212-0173.
An Introduction to Virtualization Archived 2020-10-22 at the Wayback Machine, January 2004, by Amit Singh
Allison Randal (6 February 2020). "The Ideal Versus the Real: Revisiting the History of Virtual Machines and Containers". ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 53 (1). doi:10.1145/3365199.

Tule-hog (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virtualization Development

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

This article does not distinguish Virtualization development from the concept of virtualization. It was recently changed from a redirect to an article by moving material from timeline of virtualization development, but unfortunately that material does not seem to make it at all clear what the subject matter of this article is intended to be. I would guess from the title it is the use of virtual machines for software development, or the development of virtual machines but I don't think either of these merit their own article at it is also not at all discussed in the article as it stands. It also appears to largely consist of WP:OR, and notability cannot be established since it's unclear what the article is about in the first place. I would propose it be merged into Virtualization but I don't think there's anything in the article worth moving at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Virtualization. A taxonomy of virtualization technologies would benefit the main article. Tule-hog (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's anything worth merging - it duplicates material that's already better covered in Virtualization and Application virtualization (and the timeline section is somewhat misleading, as it's missing the first 25-odd years of history). Adam Sampson (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Developer

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Historyexpert2 What are the reasons for nominating this article, Smarter Planet, and IBM Master Inventor? Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While OP provided no valid reasons for deletion, I could find no secondary sources about IBM Developer. It's just their forum. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Smarter Planet

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
The quality was not improved in a decade or more
To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM as part of brand and reputation section. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the commitment by IBM to this direction is real and notable. The article has sources, and while some updating might be appropriate that is not a reason to delete. Merging would not appropriate as this is different. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Historyexpert2, what is your rationale for nominating these articles? C F A 💬 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
- To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of seeing more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I can find several interviews with master inventors, and material from IBM, but the closest I could find to significant independent coverage is this article [33], which gives some background but is mostly about a single master inventor. But without at least one more source I don't think we have anything for an article. Plus, the level of detail currently in the article suggests it was written by an IBM insider and/or based on IBM (i.e. non-independent) sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't bothered to provide a rational why this article should be deleted. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds a bit WP:PROMO, cites no sources, and does not seem notable.SecretSpectre (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. One does not appear likely to emerge here, and the desired outcome does not require AfD. Please continue this discussion on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHFD

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

Looking at a web search, the airport appears to be the overwhelmingly primary topic. The disambiguation can be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote at the airport article (a previous attempt at redirecting the article has been reverted by the page creator). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this is a requested move, not a deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not requesting any moves. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To the nominator, please provide a link to your proposed Redirect target article which should have been included in your nomination statement. At least that's what I think you are asking for, I'm not sure. Also, you didn't need an AFD to turn an article page into a Redirect. AFD is for proposing that articles be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the airport article, which was implied by the nomination. Also, I didn't feel like immediately redirecting a disambiguation page since it likely doesn't have a lot of watchers so figured to draw some attention to it. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since I only just realised that @Bkonrad (who did not comment here) has added another meaning, it seems logical to just move this page to KHFD (disambiguation). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but please don't just refer to "the airport article", please add a link to the specific redirect target article you want. If this discussion closes as a Redirect, the closer shouldn't have to go looking themselves to find out what you meant and could have mentioned in your original nomination statement. Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who cannot figure this out from looking at the page should not be closing this discussion IMO. And looking at the page should be done by a closer. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 14:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the hostility? I'm just asking you to make things easy for our closers who look at dozens of AFDs a day. Closers shouldn't have to read your mind and guess which article you meant, they usually focus on the substance of the discussion, they generally don't review the article, looking for probable target articles. There could be several airports mentioned in it. I asked you to do something extremely simple and you seem unable to do this. I think anyone who cannot figure out how to include a link in an AFD opinion shouldn't be suggesting a redirect or merging. It's Wikipedia 101. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There could be several airports mentioned in it. – there are not, and my phrasing is unambiguous. If there were, I would have chosen a different one. And in fact something as extremely simple as this could have been done together with your very first comment if you deemed it necessary to link it here. If it's somehow still unclear, yes, the article is Hartford-Brainard Airport, the only airport mentioned on the (originally 2-, now) 3-entry dab page. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 01:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:REDIRECT: "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.^[1]", citing an RFC. So it's not necessary, but according to that guideline when the article is contested some form of outside input is necessary and AFD is an option.

It does seem kind of like a requested move what with everyone talking about the primary topic and all: the thing I just quoted doesn't mention disambiguations?

Airport mentioned seems to be the Hartford–Brainard Airport.

I guess a {{redirect}} template could be added, and a KHFD (disambiguation) page could be created?

Support redirect on the grounds that the other options are the former name of a no-longer existent radio station and part of the code of another small radio station that doesn't actually have its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other option would be moving this to dispute resolution but since it's already gotten started it seems like just procedural hassle. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and tag for clean up). The disambiguation page (as at the time of this comment) lists 3 legitimate uses. It would be difficult to assert a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I could withdraw this nomination and request a move of the disambiguation page now. But I would say that an active airport is primary to a former callsign of a defunct municipal radio station and a municipal TV station (with 600 Google hits for "KHFD-LD" vs 88000 for "KHFD"). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 14:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.

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. Page creator is advised to review WP:RS to better understand what is mean on Wikipedia by "reliable sources". It's very specific, it is different from the common lay opinion of what is meant by "reliable" and it is required for articles on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and references do exist.

Here are two more:

Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)

https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your vigilance in enforcing a certain degree of verifiability to the references provided, I believe your inference that the ample links and references provided are 'unreliable' is unwarranted. The identity of all supplied sources is eminently verifiable and the information is 100% accurate. Emmajp377 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing means third party coverage about the organization in media that is fully independent of the organization. The definition of a reliable source is not "it was published by people with inside knowledge because they're directly involved", it's "the source represents a journalist independently writing and publishing media content that covers the things the organization does as news". Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources in the article are either non-independent (the organization, a parent organization, someone the organization partners with talking about their partnership) or they quote the organization on something. No source given appears to describe it other than one giving a one-sentence statement not saying much more than that it's a cybersecurity organization. Did a search to see if I could find any independent sources that discuss it in at least a couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything, other than press releases. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision that "a couple of paragraphs" of descriptive text must accompany any "independent source" is arbitrary. If you found even one of these references to be inaccurate or misleading, then say so. If not, your assertion that "all sources are either non-independent or provide an independent quote" do not establish the organization's lack of credibility. If you however believe that this organization and its mission are either not important or obsolete, then state it as such. Otherwise why trivialize the important work that this federal non-profit organization does? Emmajp377 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An independent source is either a media outlet or a book writing about the organization's work journalistically and/or analytically. It is not (a) anything that the organization or other people or organizations directly affiliated with it wrote and published themselves, or (b) the organization's founder being briefly quoted as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bamlet Smallman

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

~~A successful but nonnotable businessman --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, after article expansion. --Altenmann >talk 01:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is Canada's "standard national biographical dictionary", as expected by WP:ANYBIO, then the subject is "likely to be notable" (although not definitively/automatically notable) under that guideline. Guliolopez (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, an entry into such book is an argument, and I did write "successful", didn't I? nothing in the article indicates why he is better than tens of thousands of other minor retail store owners. But I may be mistaken in my opinion. --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Plenty of coverage in Canadian sources, [34], [35], [36] and he has a plaque in London [37], but he's more notable as a local person than anything national... I don't know, he opened a store in London an was well known, but is that enough for a wiki article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namumula

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(article creator) Keep: There are significant sources of this article that covers of this subject: Billboard Philippines and ABS-CBN News, ~~Although~~ Although, ~~i cite the social media of Maki (Maki's post on Instagram about his new song) but I supported the social media post with with reliable sources just I mentioned earlier and~~ there is a stub-article to expand the article.

Also, Namumula is set to release on Friday (August 30, 2024), I don't think this is a WP:TOOSOON, the days are numbered until the song is released. Royiswariii (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Royuswari. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It definitely fails WP:NSONG, a song not yet officially released could not be significantly covered by media, the existing “coverages” are only marketing maneuvers. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. Nihonjinatny (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated by Royiswariii are reliable; they're more than just an announcement since they talk about the song. I also found a few more sources which talk about the song: [38], [39] and [40]. Since the song is slated to be released tomorrow, we'll expect some more sources about it. Nonetheless, the article is good enough to meet WP:NSONG. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: The song was released today. Tho I agree the sourcing for the cast needs to be revised for primary sources reasons. Borgenland (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as it already met NSONG and has enough reliable sources. 139.135.241.99 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, this song has been released today, does this change the situation regarding the sourcing for this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi! I'm the creator of the Namumula article. The song was released yesterday, and I've added some new sources to the article. Other users have also helped me further expand it. Royiswariii (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

Keep: With the sources above and this in Billboard and this in ABS-CBN (after today's release), it meets NSONG and probably did before anyways. Looks like it is likely to chart high according to the Billboard article. C F A 💬 03:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song meets NSONG criteria and likely did so prior to this discussion. The sources, such as ABS-CBN and Billboard, are reliable and provide sufficient depth. Indo360 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 04:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination)

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

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}} to this nomination, which did not previously have the full AfD formatting. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a No.1 hit album and other hits on Billboards Top Christian Albums chart and also has coverage in album reviews on reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythmns. Also this is significant coverage with a byeline here, and also here. The article can be rewritten or shortened but AfD is not for clean-up purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Atlantic306, I am not against keeping the article and you may be right about the non-necessity of this Afd, I could not find where I could make this type of request. But in the current state the article should be put back in draft and be republished later when a sorting of sources will be done because the article is hardly clear in the current state SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).

In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SparklingBlueMoon, why is this AFD called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination) when there has been no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) nor a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson? Why is this the 2nd nomination? Was there a previous AFD under a different page title? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz, when I tried to make the nomination manually a message told me that there had already been a result before but it is not impossible that it was an error. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. as an ATD. Editors can create a Redirect from this page title if that is an edit independent from this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Just go to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and ctrl-f his character Sethupathi. He has played negative roles (in films such as Badrinath) which may have garnered more recognition than Evvarikee Cheppoddu.[41] DareshMohan (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DareshMohan. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. The subject's whole career is from unreliable source 123Telugu.com. If you take out everything from the career that is solely from unreliable source, nothing is left. 2 other unreliable sources are Indiaglitz and idlebrain. TimesofIndia source WP:NEWSORGINDIA is also just an interview for WP:PROMO of upcoming film. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page but also opting for draftify if the page can be improved with significant coverage with reliable secondary independent sources. Page also fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was created by Mr Nerd 96, who is blocked for "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use, ignored COI disclosure requests and continued editing NSM Public School, Vijayawada, in addition to potentially UPE-edits at Bandi Saroj Kumar, Rakesh Varre." RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also okay with a redirect since a lot of sources point to Evvarikee Cheppoddu, if all sources are WP:PROMO. All information on the page that is considered non-neutral should be made neutral. DareshMohan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, hopefully to find a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources currently cited could be called significant coverages, nothing really significant has happened to the person. Please see WP:NOTPROMO. In case the person would one day has enough notability, I don't oppose moving the article to userspace for now. Nihonjinatny (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjinatny, why would this article be moved to User space rather than Draft space? No one has asked for it to be userfied and the article creator is blocked. I'm just surprised at your suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I thought userfy and draftify are same in effect, it seems I was so wrong. Please teach me the essential differences of the two, thanks! Nihonjinatny (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are tabloid and the subject doesn't have notability to the degree independent of the movies they starred in. To make matters worse, some of the movie articles cross-linked are themselves poorly sourced. This article has also been deleted before, only to be resurrected by a now-blocked editor with a history of WP:COI. What changed from that time? Absolutely nothing. Rather than a biography of a living person, this article is a spamcruftvertisement. It's full of useless junk, pointless trivia, and serves only to promote the career of an otherwise non-notable actor.

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now. Need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the arguments for a procedural Keep based on the number of pages nominated was not anchored in policy, the Delete side failed to attain consensus. Views expressed here suggest discussion would be more effective with individual article nominations or smaller groups, perhaps based on country of venue, which would allow using the appropriate country Portal to solicit views. Any editor is welcome to renominate individual pages or small region-based groups without delay. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the lists aren't notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Other problems exist: Verifiability varies, but many of these are poorly referenced. Almost all events cataloged are not independently notable. The lists don't have clear inclusion criteria -- "entertainment events" doesn't specifically exclude or include sporting events, for example. While the lists are mostly music performances, other performances are ignored. mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

-- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic. WIkipedia not catalog. --Altenmann >talk 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to be individually nominated (and some were already kept once or twice before individually); some events are naturally excluded because they're not meant for public attendance (for instance, shareholder meetings or private religious rallies) or don't meet our criteria plain and simple (made for TV events or an obvious industry plant where those in the crowd are paid to be there and fill seats or all get free tickets). As always with these >5 article nominations I just don't see a bulk nom as a good way to filter through GNG/N. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page for all of these, and the only ones that had prior AFD results were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers who have performed at the Mall of Asia, which closed as keep (dubiously), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment events at Perth Arena, which closed as no consensus, neither of which had a second nomination, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In any case, dumping these all down at once as separate nominations will not produce any more meaningful results than bundling them together, so this just isn't a good argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit confusing as "List of entertainers" was nominated under a different name. And I see the "Perth Arena" does have a previous nomination, but my first-time nomination links all work, leading here. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them together because the concerns about failing WP:NOTDB and WP:NLIST and having weak inclusion criteria apply to all of the topics. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against policy and guidelines: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. None of the lists have notability as a class. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The variety of venues makes it impossible to vote here imv. And if i was to vote, I would argue most of these lists are about notable topics as a set and might meet WP:SPLITLIST (and vote Keep all). However, the nominator is in my opinion totally right regarding the fact that certain of these lists would need a better definition of their respective scope, and more sources. But that can be discussed on talk pages.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "imv"? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In my view" Geschichte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, any complaints about the bundled nomination are nonsense. These are all extremely similar, and dumping 30 listings at once isn't going to be any better in terms of coverage or participation. If (and that's a big if) anyone thinks that any of these lists are sufficiently unique enough of a case to warrant an individual nomination, they can always explain why, and nomination can be updated to have any like that separate.
And second, Wikipedia is not a database of concert (or "entertainment" even) performances. Some of these are wildly unsourced, and for those that do have sources, they tend to be primary to the venue, or just some local news coverage that yes, an aging Def Leppard played here, but no one cared enough to show up. That doesn't pass the smell test for NLIST, as especially evidenced by the vague inclusion criteria. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep these need to be considered individually, Bundling them, while simpler for the person nominating, makes it very difficult for those assessing each articles individual value. While I can evaluate the worth of some venues, I can not evaluate all venues. I would also challenge any of you who a suggesting a sweeping delete of all to prove, on the basis of each particular venue named, that that particular venues list should be deleted. Some may be more appropriately merged into the venues article rather than deleted. The bundled nomination makes no sense in this instance. NealeWellington (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained immediately above, having 30 individual nominations dumped at once isn't going to make a bit of difference in terms of ease of evaluation, and will probably only serve to fragment discussion of this general type of article. And like I also explained, if you think there are any that deserve to get pulled out because they're sufficiently different, you can always just say so, and I doubt anyone would throw up much of a fuss about it. And it's not anyone's job to "prove" that an article should get deleted, an impossible task anyway. People have explained why they think these should be deleted, and just asking for more bureaucratic process without actually demonstrating how it might help just comes across as stonewalling. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A proceedural keep vote might be acceptable if one could show a flaw in the rationale being applied to all the nominations. That is, if one cited reliable sources showing a couple (just two or three) satisfied WP:NLIST, then it would be quite reasonable to argue that the mass nominaton raised questions about appropriate levels of WP:BEFORE and would make a stronger case for invididual nominations. But to date, not a single RS has been shown that satisfies NLIST for a single venue. These appear nothing more than directory listings and as such are against policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "procedural keep vote"? I don't think I've ever heard of it before, and there are two such votes here now. Where can I read about the vote meanings used in AfD? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas a procedual keep is when the nomination for deletion contains errors, see WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Worth noting, it's a different from a speedy keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've heard of a procedural closure before, but never a "procedural keep". To me, they seem quite different: "keep" implies that a decision to keep was made, dismissing the AfD with prejudice ... when really that isn't the intent. (Or is it?) -- mikeblas (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All procedural closes will by definition be keeps in that specific instance (but not necessarily in general); in contrast "procedural deletes" are covered by WP:CSD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an AfD is closed keep, there's the implication that it shouldn't be re-nominated again until some time has passed. Is that also true for a "procedural keep" closure? I think that's so, and that's why I identify a difference between "procedural close" and "procedural keep". -- mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing obliges you to evaluate the worth (do you mean "notability"?) of any venues. Instead, we're evaluating WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB which applies to all of these articles: are the performances notable, as a group? I think they're not, and I think that applies uniformly. I don't appreciate the implication of laziness. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with bundling these articles together is there is no opportunity to address an individual article over the bundle of articles. If for instance I can establish notability for one article, then it will be deleted because the other articles are not notable or if one article is better merged with a corresponding article about the particular venue then the same problem applies. That is what I have an objection to/problem with. I accept there a are are instances where bundling is appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Mike - it wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology, but my overall objection still stands. NealeWellington (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. Is Wikipeidia process really so inflexible that individual exceptions can't be filtered from a bulk nomination without closing the bulk nomination and re-nominating the articles discretely? Seems sad, if so, that such a process stands in the way of doing the right thing. Not to be obstinate, but I don't know what individual nominations would change. If I re-nominated each article, I'd explain the same thing again and again: there's no demonstration of notability of the group of performances, and that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST; plus, there are concerns about WP:NOTDB. How would that be meaningfully different for each? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NealeWellington Nothing in the process suggests one (or more than one) cannot be found notable. I'd certainly support a relisting individually if a couple could be found to satisfy NLIST...but no one seems to be able to identify RS for a single one. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting discussion for another week as it is not realistic to ask participants to evaluate 28 articles over 7 days and because discussion is still ongoing in this discussion. To answer a couple of questions, I've seen bundled nominations closed as Procedural Keeps and the next day, each article has been nominated individually so a nominator doesn't have to wait months for a follow-up. Secondly, I've seen individual articles removed from bundled nominations so it is worth the time to argue to Keep individual articles if you think that notability can be established. I realize that a bundled nomination can seem overwhelming to editors that are inclusionists but the Delete closure is not a done deal. Make your case, for one or two articles or for them all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. This bundling has been so convoluted that not every project appears to have been properly notified, including us at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted? What do you mean? -- `mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [42] as an example. I think you can count that as a Delete though. Borgenland (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's an example of convolution. What am I missing? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above reasons. Dash9Z (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: which reasons? The only "Keep" vote says they need to be nominated individually. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NealeWellington. C 679 03:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grasslands Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Could only find trivial mentions. C F A 💬 00:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 00:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any coverage meeting WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also unable to find any coverage meeting WP:ORG - I see no reason this company should have it's own article ArchCardinal (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Producers and production companies are WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, South America, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: I agree that the argument might not be valid, but Altenmann has a point about navigation. If someone is reading Wikipedia and looking for a list of telecommunication companies in the Americas, they probably wouldn't look at a category, and a template would be wayyyy too long if we were listing all the companies. (For templates, though, we could split the companies up further into Telecommunications companies in X country, but frankly that would probably overcomplicate a lot of things and it would take up a lot of time.) Heck, before I dove deep into Wikipedia, I didn't even know what a category was. (I am only replying here, not in the other AfD to keep discussion centralized.) ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this fails. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the North and South America telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how this is any different to the previous List of telecommunications companies article I split it from.

I’m not going to get passionate about either position on the matter, I split the articles only for readability. Adriazeri (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very against WP:OR. There is nothing encyclopaedic about these articles. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has got nothing to do with WP:OR, what are you talking about? Adriazeri (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I'm not seeing anything about these lists that violates WP:OR. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa

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

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, Africa, and Middle East. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, like I replied in the other article, Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. It still violates NOTADIRECTORY. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this meets. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the Middle East and Africa telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht Club de Chile}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gehard Hasa}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanglewood Music and Arts Festival}}