Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 27	August 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Hugh Skidmore

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news and British newspaper archives did not yield any decent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaka-Serbian war

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

No sources cited. Likely WP:OR as well. Most of it concerns a "Battle of Pelister" that was recently deleted (nominated by Golikom); see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pelister (1340). So this creation seems to be a compensation for that. Griboski (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drmies: Since you commented on the related afD, the editor is creating a bunch of POV, unsourced and OR articles. I'm wondering if administration intervention is appropriate here. It follows similar patterns of other new editors collaborating on re-creating similar bad articles that have to be taken to AfD (for example [1] [2]). At the very least, WP:COMPETENCY is an issue.--Griboski (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griboski, that sounds like a matter for ANI, really... Drmies (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Albania, North Macedonia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Popplewell

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only played 1 first grade game. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on Trove - Popplewell appears in 58 editions of "The Rugby League news" though almost all are simple team lists, there is also a brief mention in an article in "Royal Australian Navy News" (22 Aug 1969, p.15) - but no evidence of any significant coverage. EdwardUK (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

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

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-brainer, not a dictionary. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true the article in it's current form is more of a dictionary entry but when deciding to delete something or not the current state of the article is not that important, the significance of the topic is. I believe that because this phrase has cultural/religious significance that can be seen in its wide usage when someone dies in middle eastern cultures it is significant in the same way the article "Raining cats and dogs" is. Therefore I believe it should be kept on that basis as it is a common expression and other common expressions also have articles. EvilxFish (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and a lot of Wikipedia articles are kind of like dictionaries anyway since they have a title and give the definition, such as the article on cats. They're just much more detailed. Like you said, this saying also has such cultural and religious significance that it deserves its own article. This saying is referred as the "Istirja", so maybe that could be the article's title instead. I think that'd be better but I say keep it! BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years

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

While the nearest star systems to Earth are regularly discussed as a group, there doesn't seem to be such list notability for these farther away. If this site can be believed, "There are 271,732 stars within 1,000 light-years of Earth which are visible in a backyard telescope." Are we really going to list them all by distance to Earth? I don't know where the best cutoff would be (100 light years seems reasonable), further off it is unusual to group them like this, as they have nothing in common apart from their distance to us, which is not a defining characteristic (stars don't have characteristics which depend on their distance, and don't "interact" within a group either as they are probably at completely different location up to 1100 light years distant from each other in this case). Fram (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. C F A 💬 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same for other lists beyond 100 light-years (or even all lists beyond 80 light-years, which were all recently created by a single user). At some point these lists become impossible to complete and impractical to maintain. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge Other articles in this set were snow kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (2nd nomination). While these are new, I don't think they're inappropriate if for farther systems only the notable ones are listed so they are maintainable. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For comparison, the List of nearest stars includes 131 objects in 94 stellar systems within 20 light years. If you extrapolate that out to the range of 500-550, that would be 5,172 times as many objects. Clearly that would be impractical for a reasonable-sized Wikipedia article. The List of nearest bright stars already covers the brightest stars within 48.9 light years. At some point these lists need to be cut off, and/or the selection criteria tightened up. Finally, there is also the problem of decreasing accuracy with distance: it grows more difficult to restrict a star to a particular list (particularly for the brighter stars). Praemonitus (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the cutoff should be at 100 light-years. A list with a 50 ly of range should be incredibly large.

21 Andromedae (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's a pretty silly list: as the radius of the shell grows, the number of stars in it will increase drastically. What purpose does such a list serve? Maybe it makes sense for a list out to 50ly or so, but not more than that. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If restricted to notable systems, the list will be intrinsically filtered. Useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison. If the list grows large, the article can be split and grouped, or the range refined. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What "contextual comparison" can be made from the coincidental distance to Earth? Listing stars by type (e.g. the Supernova candidates) may be useful, and is a typical subject for research or discussion: listing stars whose only common characteristic is their distance to Earth (without being very close) doesn't seem "useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison" at all. Has any other reliable source made lists like this, or are we the first one to find this useful and so on? Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scale height of the thin disk is 980–1,300 ly, and we're in about the middle, so I can see keeping lists of stars out to that radius (out to 500 or 650 ly), but no further. Lists for stars > 100 ly, which use a shell thickness of 50 ly, should be restricted to systems which have their own article or redirect to a list entry (e.g. to List of multiplanetary systems, etc.). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Space is 3D. Why is the size of that one direction of the thin disk, but not the other two directions? The lists are not restricted to stars right above or below the Earth axis (or Sun axis). Again, are there sources discussing this list topic (as a group?) Is there anything noteworthy about this grouping? Fram (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no clear & nearby boundaries in the other directions, so the scale height of the thin disk is the most natural/mathematical stopping point. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's nothing natural about restricting a list of stars in all directions, to a dimension in one direction. And it completely ignores the need for sources for the group. Fram (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The scale height is not a notability guideline, but a limit to be applied after the notability threshold has been reached. Sources discussing 500-550 are the same as those for other radii - that is, there are no sources that I know of explicitly discussing star systems 20-25, 50-55, 75-80 ly away, yet they were WP:SNOW kept. The same applies here, so explicit, list-range-matching sourcing is not a relevant argument.
        The # of notable objects within x ly will increase as the resolution of our instruments increases. Gaia, for example, provides reasonably accurate distances out to ~10,000 ly, depending on the magnitude, so it is (probably) important to set a cutoff, and not an arbitrary one like 50, 80, or 100 ly.
        Imagine blowing up a balloon sandwiched between 2 flat horizontal plates held apart by some distance. The balloon expands spherically freely until it touches both plates, and then only expands horizontally. That's what's happening here with these lists. The scale height of the thin disk is (metaphorically) the distance between those plates, and so is a natural limit. I'm open to other suggestions, as long as they're not arbitrary. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There are sources discussing stars within 10 parsecs (~33 light-years) and 20 parsecs (~65 light-years). Beyond that the amount of stars continues to exponentially increase - especially when you start using intervals of 50 light-years instead of 5 light-years. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, which is why Lists for stars > 100 ly, which use a shell thickness of 50 ly, should be restricted to systems which have their own article or redirect to a list entry. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the same editor has now created List of star systems within 500-1000 light-years, which I've added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 700-750 light-years but is also of relevance for this AfD. Fram (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here. Would it help to notify a relevant WikiProject or two to this discussion? Also, please do not move articles while an AFD is ongoing...it complicates their closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An arbitrary distance range doesn't make any sense. What's so special about 550 light years? (Is that how fast the Millennium Falcon can go?) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Waterman

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

Article about a local artist created by a now banned editor who acknowledged a WP:COI with the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST and a WP:BEFORE search does not appear to show any WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found some more recent information, including a very long article in the New Haven Independent which has info that should be added to the article. (I did some minor additions and included this as a reference.) I also found that he has a piece permanently in the Hood Museum of Art at Dartmouth. Since the notability criteron is stated as a plural ("been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums") this probably falls short. I have read in informal accounts that he had a major exhibit at Yale's Peabody museum but haven't nailed that down. In G-Books there are gallery guides that show that he had exhibits but these are mere listings of times and places Lamona (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I updated the expired 404 citations with archives and I think there might be a possibility he's notable. Once I go thru the updated sources, will !vote. Not totally sure yet, as the first source is really about a hardware store, not him, the second source is about an open studio tour (with just a picture and mention of him.) The fifth source doesn't mention him at all, which is how far I got so far. Some of the reviews seem fine, however whether he meets GNG and the stricter NARTIST criteria to be determined. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is ref bombed with sources that are just passing mentions. Multiple citations for the identity of his wife, 7 sources for the lede. Not a reason for deletion, but still the article needs some editing. Specifically bio info from his personal website The Hood Museum piece is a donation from the Dartmouth's Class of 1978 (his alma mater and class). --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:41, 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!} 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, nothing in the Getty ULAN, [3], and I don't see notability otherwise. Sources as mentioned are passing mentions or just not helpful. the COI banned editor showing this is PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to be notable from what I can see. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brimblecombe

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A player is unlikely to be notable with just 1 first class game. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. Nom fails to raise a case of why deletion is required when in the prod decline a valid alternative to deletion was directly identified, "a redirect to the List of Queensland first-class cricketers" WP:ATD-R. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NCRIC or indeed WP:BIO? Failing the relevant notability is grounds for deletion, that's based on my 17 years in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. I did already suggest this to the nom, not only when I declined the prod but on a message at their talk page, and I'd have been perfectly happy with a bold redirect here or a discussion at the cricket wiki project followed by that. This is the long established consensus with articles about cricketers where sources cannot be found: it dates back to 2018 at least and is a clear ATD. Ideally we'd get a short note added - the content of the paragraph including the Hope quote would form the basis of this which would allow references to come across as well. Having looked for more sources, there's bit there but the only one that hinted at detail was behind a paywall and I'm pretty relaxed about people such as this being redirected if there aren't sources and an ATD exists. The number of matches played is largely irrelevant. If anyone things that they can come up with a quantitative measure to determine a "bight line criteria" for first-class cricketers then good luck to them; I'd be happy to listen to any. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:26, 15 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!} 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played at the highest level of domestic cricket in Australia and the expansion work done by Hack shows that 'sufficient coverage' exists to meet both WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. --JP (Talk) 08:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are absolute guidelines. WP:NCRIC clearly says that top domestic level players may have sufficient coverage i.e. they also may not like here. WP:SPORTCRIT also asserts the need for coverage, something that this assertion has not provided. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are what the proposer has quoted as the reason for deletion. As I stated the referenced sources qualify as sufficient coverage imo. JP (Talk) 16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. A modern day athlete from an english speaking country shouldn't have any problem having significant coverage about him if he was notable. Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers is also acceptable. Alvaldi (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't meet WP:GNG so doesn't need a separate article, but redirect to list article is a standard outcome for these types of cricketers. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins at St. Clare's

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

No reliable source to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to match any of WP:NBOOK's criteria. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't get very far in my own search for sources, but it would really surprise me if a book by Enid Blyton wasn't notable under WP:NBOOK. I expect there's coverage in historical newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

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

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [4]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [5]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [6] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SBSS 0953+549

AfDs for this article:

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

Trying again to delete this article. The reasons for keep in the past nominations are ridiculous and superficial. The only relevant paper (Levshakov et al. 1986) only mention spectral data and nothing of note. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDSSCGB 10189

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J22550681+0058396

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I think we need a more rigorous discussion of this object. The criteria is significant coverage, not mere mention. And no such study exists. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of King Kong amusement park attractions

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

Per WP:LISTN, this isn't a notable enough subject to have a list article about. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Amusement parks. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, perhaps this can be converted back into a disambiguation page, as was the case before 2010. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough entries with links their own articles, to make it a valid navigational list. List articles are more useful than categories since they allow more information, helping people find what they want easier. Perhaps make an article with all the entries from Category:Amusement rides based on film franchises, and merge this one to it. Dream Focus 01:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if NLIST isn't met, which I am not necessarily conceding, it can survive as a navigational aid or disambiguation page, which is a perfectly fine ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is too small. We should see where it can be merged. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. As a list, this article just doesn't really work due to a lack of significant coverage on this subject, but this is admittedly a useful directory page for those interested in searching about this topic. I'd support a disambiguation so it can better fulfill its purpose, as its current status just doesn't work well as a list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or disambiguate per Pokelego999. This could fit nicely at a section of King Kong, but a short navigational aid is the best way to frame this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not notable enough, plus the list is too small. Should consider merging.

Priscilladfb16 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section on the King Kong page, preferably in prose. It's useful information, but such a short list doesn't need its own page. 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the article is merged, it would probably be better suited to a sub-article such as King Kong (franchise) or King Kong in popular culture. Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 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!} 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J09133888-1019196

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E. A. Jabbar

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

There are no reliable sources, almost all sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the best I can pull up [7], a blog post from a RS. Sourcing now in the article is of the same quality; the Times of India is a marginal-reliability source per Source Highlighter. With nothing better found, it's not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a well known personality in rationalism in kerala. See his debate itself has covered in national news papers [[8]]He is also a well known author [[9]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Popular in this filed - rationalism in Kerala. Mostly people from this category might not have frequent news appearances like of celebrities. [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.213 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NBIO and WP:GTEST (news search), imo. Called a "Renowned Atheist and Speaker" here, is featured in the Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala article. Tag with Template:BLP sources (more citations needed) instead of deletion. Helps balance out the encyclopedia in this topic area. 5Q5|^✉ 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to M._M._Akbar#Debate_with_E._A._Jabbar. Page is WP:CFORK. 14 sources on the page. Source 1 is WP:ROUTINE news about subject seeking police protection. Source 2 is about debate between rationalist E A Jabbar and Islamic preacher M M Akbar. Source 3 is again news with passing mention. Source 4 and 5 are same about the debate. Source 6 duplicate of source 1. Source 7 is YouTube on the debate. Source 8 is also about debate. Source 9 duplicate of source 2. Source 10 is also about debate. Source 11 is YouTube blog of the subject. Source 12 is duplicate of source 7. Source 13 and 14 are user generated Facebook pages. No sources have any significant coverage on the biography of the subject or any other except for the debate. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article primarily cites TOI, which is not a reliable source to establish notability. I agree with Oaktree’s decision to delete the article. GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: simple google search with his Malayalam language name itself gives a lot of reliable sources [13]. Also Malayalam Wikipedia does exist for a long time. [14]

Wikipedia need to be balanced. The person whom he had debate with M. M. Akbar has English references than him just because he is an Islamic scholar and this person is an atheist. On Indian atheism topic he is notable. So for English reference better tag with ‘need more English references’. Do not delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.107 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. All IP votes geolocate to Virginia and close proximity to Washington DC and are likely same person. RangersRus (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to IP which approached my talk page: Sorry if a IP is indulging in socking no point in providing advice at user talk page, hence here. Overzealous attitudes can be unhelpful and counter productive. I suggest the IP to voluntarily distance from topic area and first substantially improve acquaintance regarding checks and balances of various Wikipedia:Policies - it takes hard study work. Last but not least avoid WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, if any. Bookku (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : failed WP:GNG, This is a YouTube promotion ( WP:NOTPROMO ), Like self writing, there are many YouTubers like this in Kerala and he is only one person, so there is no need for an article --Spworld (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What a mess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCG -01-24-014

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

No notability. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Swati

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

The subject is known for just one event so this falls under WP:BIO1E, which means the subject doesn’t really qualify for a standalone BLP, yet. Also clearly fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a one-event article. His involvement in ziplines is not relevant. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not one event two events. See the article again.also he set up south Asia's longest and world highest Zipline. 39.41.141.132 (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if not kept, this should redirect to 2023 Battagram cable car incident, where Swati is mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of [15], Keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you suggesting we keep this BLP based on a blog piece? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Battagram cable car incident: Only notable for one event. C F A 💬 20:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The flooding in Naran is a seperate event, so if there were a bit more coverage of Al Swati's involvement in that then I think there could in fact be a case for a standalone article. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it meet the Notability Category. His involvement in Operations and services to Pakistan. 39.41.141.132 (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. If someone wants to improve this article they should
A) link it to the Naran flooding (or consider either making a page about that or adding that as a section on a relevant existing page) and

B) find any citation that mentions his presence in Naran independent of the Battagram incident (i.e., one published before Battagram happened). (Even a local Naran news site that mentions his name at the time would do it.) Alternatively,

C) find any other published reference to him (especially an older one) that doesn't mention Battagram. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 10:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it right, the Naram flooding happened a year after the Battagram incident - so that seems unlikely. I'd be happy with a clearer description of what his is involvement was with Naram. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page creator Janabanigu (talk · contribs) is now blocked for socking—can this be speedy deleted under G5? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence "In addition, he managed to save hundreds of lives in Naran flood of August, 2024." is not true. A bridge was destroyed by a flood, forcing people to seek an alternative route out of Naran. People were inconvenienced, but no lives were lost and no lives were at risk. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 26 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!} 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket drone

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

Poorly sourced with claims of significance being completely uncited. Other sources also note the "Rocket Drone" is a misconception as it in fact uses a jet engine and is also not a unique design as other kamikaze drones with jet engines already exist. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, Aviation, and Ukraine. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : It seems perhaps merging some of this content with either Precision-guided_munition or Loitering_munition or Cruise_missile would be right step. Though I'm not sure anyone publicly knows much for sure about Ukraine's rocket drone munition to know how it should be classified. Ukraine even claims it's brand-new technology, but I don't know enough about it to know if that's true. Perhaps "rocket drone" should be a re-direct to an appropriate page. The sourcing should not be an issue...there's plenty of Ukrainian government statements that they have made a "rocket drone" (or "missile drone"), you could improve the article yourself by adding those references. A lack of references isn't a reason for deletion, it's a reason to put "citation needed". The bigger reason to turn this into a re-direct is, as you point out, that it seems similar "jet drones" already exist, and "rocket drone" is just a Ukrainian-translated (or mis-translated?) term for the same thing. Unless Ukraine really has made something new, which we'll have to wait to find out. The wiki unfortunately doesn't really seem to contain any generic discussion of "jet drone" munitions. I looked at the link you supplied, and looking at the wiki, there's a page for the non-munition QinetiQ_Banshee, but the munition variant seems like a recent hack by the UK. But there's no generic page or content for such "jet drone" munitions. The situation is even worse for the HESA_Karrar where it's known to be a jet drone, but disputed whether it can even carry munitions, and no content in the wiki about it BEING a munition. There is the Shahed_drones#Shahed_238 that is described as a loitering jet munition...but nothing on the Loitering_munition page about anything jet-powered. So maybe merge some jet content into the Loitering_munition page and make "rocket drone" and "missile drone" redirect to Loitering_munition

Jason C.K. (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC 2046648

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to say keep solely because of how cool it looks, I'll have go delete per nom. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poșta Veche (disambiguation)

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

Redundant dab page. Poșta Veche links directly to Stângăceaua commune and the second entry does not contain this name at all. If it contained it, the solution would be a hatnote on the commune page, not a dab page. FromCzech (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and Romania. FromCzech (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On ro-wiki, there is also a third and fully fleshed-out ro:Poșta Veche (Belgrad). The term apparently means "old post office". So while this dab page is currently redundant (I agree with nom), it doesn't have to remain so. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created Poşta Veche (district). ro:Poșta Veche (Belgrad) already exists here at Old Post Office (Belgrade, Serbia); it just wasn't linked. The village in Romania (ro:Poșta Veche, Mehedinți) may be notable under NPLACE but I couldn't find enough coverage to expand it beyond a sub-stub, so I haven't created it for now. Regardless, the district and the post office are both valid uses of "Poșta Veche" and I don't think there's a primary topic between them. The village in Romania is certainly not the primary topic for "Poșta Veche", so the disambiguation page should be moved to Poșta Veche. C F A 💬 20:54, 21 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!} 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brand & Co.

AfDs for this article:

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

This promotional article was refunded after soft deletion with a promise from a quickie-autoconfirmed SPA that "I have gathered a few new sources to support the article." However, a week later, the article is untouched, and this subject still fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of primary sources, promotional fluff, sponsored content, trivial mentions, user-generated content, interviews, and churnalism -- none of it WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article has not improved since the last nomination. The sources are mostly sponsored articles plus an interview and a blog post. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello. I apologize for the very delayed response. There was an unexpected delay on my end, and I forgot to update the page as mentioned. I have just updated LOVE BRAND & Co. with additional references as promised. Please check it, and hopefully, you can move it to the draftspace instead of deleting it. Thank you. QuincKristoffer (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources are absolutely not WP:SIGCOV. A "Forbes contributor" blog post is not a reliable source, and the other three added sources (Grazia Daily, the Independent and Evening Standard) are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this brand in lists of capsule product reviews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some more sources andd although at this point I make no comment about whether they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I hope we can at least be consistent in our approach to evaluating sources that meet GNG/NCORP.

Kensington Mums website has extensive information on the background to the company and says "Since day one, LOVE BRAND & Co. has been donating a percentage of revenue – not profits to protecting the natural world. Every year, LOVE BRAND & Co. supports and works closely with remarkable conservation charities and foundations, helping ensure the survival of some of the most vulnerable species and habitats on earth." and "The collections are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The brand has grown into a global lifestyle brand..."
Drapers website also provides information on the company and their prospects and says "Positing a branded offer on making a link with charity has a relatively long history for brands, but an entire shop founded on the notion of giving a portion of the sales to selected causes is more unusual. To make this proposition viable, ticket prices have to be high - operating costs in this part of London tend to be on the high side and if 5% of the value of sales is going to charities, then volume may also have to form part of the equation."
This in Tempus Magazine says "Since its launch in 2010, Love Brand has become the go-to summer lifestyle brand for the discerning male shopper, drawn as much by its clever, colourful prints and comfortable fit as its strong eco credentials. The collections, which include classic linen shirts, T-shirts, shorts and trousers, are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The label’s best-selling swim shorts (for men and boys) are made entirely from recycled plastic."
This in FashionBeans says "The founding concept of the brand, which was launched in 2011, was to deliver “fashion for the love of elephants”. With this motto in mind, not only does Love Brand & Co. offer luxury beachwear to fashionable men, but the brand also donates 5% of its sales to elephant conservation, supporting select elephant charities: Elephant Family, The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust and Tusk Trust."
This written by Editorial Staff of Authority Magazine says "Founded by Rose and Oliver Tomalin, Love Brand & Co. is a sustainable luxury resort and swimwear brand that not only creates exceptional, stylish garments but also seeks to protect the environment. A certified B-Corp that has since day one been donating 1% of revenue, not profit, to charities around the world and protecting an amazing array of endangered species and wild landscapes, Love Brand & Co. has been redefining beachwear with a greater purpose."
[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/best-sustainable-fashion-brands-put-154733541.html This in the Evening Standard" says "Love Brand & Co. was founded by Oliver Tomalin in 2010 with a commitment to protecting endangered and vulnerable wildlife. Members of 1% For The Planet, the brand donates a percentage of annual net revenue to fund worldwide projects that promote human-wildlife coexistance, as well as donating products to communities as a gesture of thanks for their important role in ensuring a future for endagered wildlife - at the moment, they’re working with families in the Assam region in India who help with elephant conservation."

The above is extensive SIGCOV coverage in reliable sources which go beyond trivial mentions. Although some of the articles are based on interviews, they also contain sufficient content which does not appear in quotes. My initial thoughts are that none of these meet GNG/NCORP but perhaps others can check. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing Quick comments:

KensingtonMums is a blog and thus a WP:SPS; not reliable.
Drapers is a fashion industry WP:TRADES publication, which are generally not considered sufficiently independent.
The Tempus source is WP:INTERVIEW-based and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
As a product review FashionBeans appears to offer WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS.
The Authority Magazine link is dead and not archived so I can't review it.
The Evening Standard link is a mention in a longer list, not WP:SIGCOV

Thus I agree with you, with one exception, these do not contribute to WP:NCORP, the governing standard -- we need more to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with barely any/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. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge . I believe due to there being no notable injuries nor fatalities that this incident is not notable, the article should be merged into An-26 Accidents and Incidents along with the shortening of the accidents and incidents catalouge in South Sudan Supreme Airlines for this accident, i'll try to lengthen the original catalouge in the An-26 page to compensate for the shortening of the original catalouge. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it should be merged per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 22:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a merge target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My apoligies for not making the merge target clear, i'd like to merge it into the accident and incidents page for the An-26, since its already in the catalouge for Wau Airport, i'll expand the Wau Airport entry with basic information from this article to pertain it. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, no need to apologize. I understood the merge target you proposed, I was just wondering what merge target user Hamterous1 had in mind.

And unrelated to that, welcome back :) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, happy to see you again, i'll be more active in this AFD category from now on along with the 2024 in aviation article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:43, 23 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!} 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge over to Antonov An-26, I found some AP coverage but it was only one article, I then looked into some French and Spanish papers but wasn't able to find anything useful. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3789

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco bowdlerization

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

Interesting topic and research, but I am afraid this is very WP:ORish. |The very term of 'Tobacco bowdlerization' seems like a Wikipedia-only OR and does not exist in other sources. Some content from here could, perhaps, be merged to Smoking ban. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Advertising. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tobacco in the United States. While I agree with everything else @Piotrus says above, I don't see the smoking ban article as supporting this topic. The majority of the examples relate to the U.S. (even the "EMI" example is cited to a Capitol records re-release). Oblivy (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, the entire article is 100% US-centric, even through the concept is global. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. "Tobacco bowdlerization" is not a term that appears in any reliable sources. (See search results, heavy with WP mirrors.) It appears to be the coining of the page creator. The only source that even refers to bowdlerization is a random comment on a Chicago Sun-Times blog post. As a result, the title is not suitable for a redirect. The content itself violates WP:NOR; many of the links are to primary source materials, and the compilation of the data is WP:SYNTH since no reliable sources that discuss this concept (under any name) are available. I don't believe this content is worth merging into another article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:29, 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!} 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure WP:MADEUP TVTropes-esque WP:SYNTH, and most of the cases seem to merely involve the removal of cigarettes and their smoke more as visual clutter in secondary work than any attempt to 'censor' smoking, or removing it from images where it just makes no sense to have them (i.e. Goodnight Moon). Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Police, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:

"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be deleted then Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda ^talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Matilda. Bduke (talk) 04:48, 23 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!} 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valud surname page. --Altenmann >talk 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be valid surname page if it had sourced information about the surname itself, or a list of people with the surname about whom we have information in en.wiki. It fails on both. PamD 07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need sorces, add {cn}, not delete. I easily added a ref after a minute of search. YEs we have info in en-wiki about the people, e.g., [16]. It is normal to have redlinks for persons reasonably notable for future articles. --Altenmann >talk 08:23, 22 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!} 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbonavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Valid surname page. These are notable people with potential articles, eg by btranslation from the corresponding text from lt-wiki --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 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!} 20:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheryene N. Tejeda

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

Insufficient reliable third-party sources for WP:BIO notability; nearly all of the references are either press releases or journal articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, the Tejada Equation doesn't seem to be used in the field, nor has it been cited in Gscholar beyond her own paper. This press release is about all I can find [17]. Appears to be self-promotion/PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

List of foreign footballers in the Persian Gulf Pro League

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

No sources, the sort of list that would be far better served by a category. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did also want to AfD this for the same reasons. Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Andhra Pradesh caste-based survey

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

The survey was scheduled to be held in the first quarter of 2024. However, it was not conducted. Post 2024 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the government changed. No developments were made. Hence I propose deletion. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Njoroge Chege

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC, nor other notability criteria. Filled with puffery, and a long history (back to 2013!) of editing by a single-purpose account, User:Njoroge Wa Chege. Rather cleverly, that user has set a redirect from their user page to Herman Njoroge Chege. A recent PROD was reversed, hence moving to AfD. Klbrain (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Kenya. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF or other notability apparent; WP:TNT is relevant anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT means delete and start over. Do you think someone should start over, i.e. recreate after it gets deleted? Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I should've said "would be relevant" (if there were notability). My point is that there is little or nothing of encyclopedic value in the current article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows a single-digit number of publications only one of which has more than one citation. This is far from enough for WP:PROF#C1 in any field, let alone his where the citation counts tend to be very high. The article does not suggest any other potential direction for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Full of puffy words and fluff, this is PROMO. Source 2 is an unreliable source per Source Highlighter (in red), so there is nothing left beyond a publication from the museum; I don't see how an AI programmer making shopping bots getting published in a natural history museum's journal helps notability. Unless it helps the animal in their daily tasks, this seems like a stretch and a rather fanciful one at that... Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2024–present)

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

Sorry if I am reviving a discussion that has been finished in the past. But all the information is easily available in both List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (simply sort) and List of Liberal Democrat MPs. I can't really imagine a need for a subset of these. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this list as a continuation of the series: List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2005–2010), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2010–2015), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2015–2017), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–2019) and List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2019–2024). Moondragon21 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Experience

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The article only cites its list of games and a short overview at MobyGames. I tried finding articles from reliable sources on this company, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Washington. MK at your service. 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, couldn't find any WP:RS under either company title that is listed for them on that page. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPICENTER

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

Sourcing is poor, even after it was "improved". Myself and others have failed to find any good secondary sources for this organization. Most of the sources in the article are primary or non-RS, or do not cover the subject in enough detail. Notability is not established and article seems promotional in nature. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoonet

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

Non-notable, contested WP:BLAR not RS coverage found on a WP:BEFORE search. Sohom (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenology (general science and discourse)

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

I first draftified this, but it was recreated. A rather unfocused essay, linking to a long youtube video uploaded by someone with the same name as the creator of this article. No idea what e.g. "Homo Erectus, Habilis, and then Sapiens also followed each other with great diasporas; that evidence shows also kept in touch, at least for new ideas to spread from end to end over a few decades, as how they formed diverse languages that spoke about the same experiences of nature. " is supposed to mean, and something like "a broad model of how the great early languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, might seem to have emerged fully formed as they were written down following the Bronze Age." seems decidedly un-mainstream science. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly-sourced unfocused essay. The other meanings of phenomenology (especially Phenomenology (philosophy) and Phenomenology (physics)) remain notable, of course, but this one doesn't even amount to a clear statement of what its subject is, let alone provide convincing evidence that there is an independently notable subject to be described. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal ruminations about philosophy aren't an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Backgammon Federation

AfDs for this article:

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

Article soft-deleted in 2022, then recreated as a redirect to World Backgammon Federation, then recently recreated with no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I would be OK either with outright deletion or with the restoration of a stable redirect per consensus as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Caught my attention because it reminded me of a certain someone who happened to show up today. Regardless, fails NORG. No significant coverage. Probably qualifies for A7. Restore redirect (or delete) and EC-protect it. C F A 💬 18:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980) (2nd nomination)

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

I am also nominating the other pages in this SNL history series:

These articles are rife with original research, unsourced and poorly sourced statements, useless cast trivia, and redundant cast lists that are already located in their respective season articles. Most of the pages segment everything by season anyway and are not the broader look at the show history that they are supposed to be. Several of them have had cleanup tags for almost a decade. They are rarely edited. And they are arbitrarily segmented by five year increments for no specific reason; this appears to be a random decision made 20 years ago in 2004 that nobody has questioned since then.

Myself and another editor have been working on a successor for these pages; it's currently at Draft:History of Saturday Night Live. It functions as the broader look at show history that these nine pages were supposed to be. It is not just redundant of the existing season pages; it makes extensive use of reliable sources and is the broader look at show history. I propose that this new page replace these existing pages. There are many benefits to this: consolidating editor efforts on one page, ditching the arbitrary separation, less maintenance effort required across multiple pages, etc.

I have already merged any non-duplicate info from these old pages into the appropriate SNL season articles. There will be nothing lost by deleting/redirecting them to the new page. I announced this plan about a week ago on the SNL talk page and have received no opposition at this point. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Saturday Night Live, until they can be merged to the upcoming article about SNL history. Far too much original research has been inserted into SNL topics in general. Looking forward to the fix. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your reply, just a note that I've already gone through and merged anything noteworthy to specific season articles that's not covered in the new history article; happy to redirect if someone wants to independently verify this though. May also potentially be useful to preserve the page histories too. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to History of Saturday Night Live assuming the merged draft article is moved to mainspace. Two comments:

the current status of the draft vs. the mainspace article is confusing - is the draft article a copy of the existing article that got edited?
the draft is extremely long now, over 127K but the draft currently seems manageable because of headings/subheadings

Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative close 1) To the extent that text has been used from these articles in a draft, we cannot delete these without deleting that draft, per WP:CWW. 2) The draft is apparently not ready for prime time, and a redirect from these articles to draft space would be an impermissible cross-namespace redirect. 3) There should be no waiting period per WP:RENOM to redirect these to the draft once it is mainspaced. That is, this is a bit premature, although the final solution is obvious and probably not controversial enough to even need an AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding sections of the full History article or the History article itself once the draft is moved to mainspace. (To clarify, I am one of the contributors to the draft.) If it were me, I would have moved the draft to mainspace first because it's already of decent quality, then AfD the articles, or even boldly redirect them. I would move it right now, but not until I get StewdioMACK's input, and the AfD is already ongoing, anyways. And as a note to other contributors, there are plans to develop the article to cut out cruft plus possibly sending it to PR for a check, so no worries on any problems currently existing with the draft. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone asks: StewdioMACK did say that they were going to AfD the articles here, but I misread it as AfC (Articles for Creation; I interpreted it as letting the draft go through the AfC process, which I had no objections with). Spinixster (trout me!) 02:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney McAvoy

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

Fails GNG. The Edinburgh Evening News articles contain little on her and are far too quote heavy for sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Paterson

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

Fails GNG. The Daily Record is a tabloid therefore shouldn't be used in BLPs. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried .ie and .uk searches for sources, what's given about her call up is all there is to be found. Nothing else, I don't see notability for athletes or GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign secretary (Kerala)

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

This is not a real government position. The sources all say that a secretary of labour and skills in the Kerala government "will hold the additional charge of the matters connected with external affairs." This has apparently been seized upon by political opponents of the Kerala government within India as being a quasi-"foreign secretary" role, but there are no reliable sources that describe it as such; this term is solely attributed to individuals being quoted. This article at best fails WP:NPOV and WP:NRV (and thus fails WP:GNG); at worst it could be considered a WP:HOAX since the office described does not, by any reliable source, exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

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

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is based on books by highly renowned historians, e.g. Andreas Kappeler and Serhii Plokhy. Those books were written explicitly to provide the historical background of that war. I don't see any of our guidelines supporting deletion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a poorly written essay that heavily focuses on the Old Rus' question, while only briefly mentioning the other historical contexts of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. It almost completely omits the modern history of both countries. Additionally, some statements are of questionable neutrality. For example: 'The legal and bureaucratic traditions of Kievan Rus' were inherited by Lithuania, but not by Muscovy,' which, as far as I know, has no basis in historical fact.Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also think creating a draft or starting over may work if it is considered viable (assuming there is no longer the problem with WP:OWN here). Mellk (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been marked as a stub since June 2024. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Deletion_discussion_at_WP:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War_(2nd_nomination) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could clearly use some work, but it does cite credible sources, of books that do focus on the historical background of the war in question no less. It should stay. Brat Forelli🦊 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two books by excellent, academic historians which we can follow when working on the article, see my "Keep" comment above. This war is special because Putin himself goes back all the way to the Middle Ages to justify the war, e.g. Putin's text On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the article now, while referenced, does not indicate its connection to the subject it purports to describe, and is, at this time, merely duplication of content existing in other articles like the one you just referenced. 'This war is special', you say, but I can think of many other geopolitical conflicts involving mediaeval historical claims, for example the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the current war in Gaza. And yet, none of these have a 'historical background' article. RGloucester — ☎ 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The scope is unclear (should we start from 1169? 1648? 1918? 1991?). The argument that there are books about this topic is untenable. Kapeller's book is about the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians (Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present). We can and should use information in these sources to improve existing articles. Alaexis_¿question? 09:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We start with Volodymyr / Vladimir the Great, because that's where Putin starts his narrative and where Kappeler and Plokhy (and Snyder and Jobst and possibly more historians) start. Kappeler's preface to the 1st edition mentions Russia's occupation of Crimea in the very first sentence, his preface to the 2nd edition mentions the Russian attack of February 2024 in the very first words. Plokhy's book title is "The Russo-Ukrainian War". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Iryna's metaphor of a lamb tied to a tree is well said and correct, if kept the article would need a high level of protection in order to avoid vandalism and excessive bias Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the scope of this article is untenable
Why so? We have numerous academic books discussing the article subject in-depth.
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books literally has "Historical background" chapter.

Some are even titled just like that: The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert: This seems to be a "Keep" vote. Is my understanding correct ? Rsk6400 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. The editor nominating the article for deletion was supposed to respond with an argument. If there is no response, that means their main argument is disproved, and the article should be kept. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is a TNT case, for reasons already described in this discussion. Basically, it's been superceded by work done elsewhere on the encyclopedia since its initial creation. Russo-Ukrainian War links to a great many of those related articles. If this is to be kept, I'd like to see the keep !voters explain what they think would go in this article that can't go anywhere else, rather than simply asserting that the topic is notable. -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:Introduction_to_deletion_process, the key tests are Verifiability, Original research, Advertisement, Vanity, Hoax, and Notability. IMHO, no proponent of deletion has yet explained how the article fails one of these tests. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual policy is at WP:DEL-REASON. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I said in my proposal for deletion, I believe this article to fall under Item 5, 'content forks'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to approach your "fork" argument with the note that "history of Russia", "history of Ukraine" you suggested the "Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War" is the fork of, all have different scopes and so don't conform to the definition of WP:CFORK. But I also noted that your actual suggestion in a deletion proposal is to delete the current article and to create a new one. Which means your whole deletion proposal contradicts itself. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to a topic that meets our notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Going back to the 1930's famine and thousands of years before is a bit of a stretch... I mean, they don't like each other and this can be explained. But I would expect a history of the more recent past, why did they invade, what happened in the weeks/months and years before that, not a hundred or thousand years ago... This could basically be summarized as "The countries have a long history of opposition" or some similar wording, then go onto the most recent causes of the war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can replace this whole article in a sentence or two; the "history of opposition between Ukraine and Russia" could be an article, apart from this war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics and Pragmatics

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

Non-notable journal. Three sources are listed, two of them not independent. The third one shows that this jourl is not listed in any selective database. WP:BEFORE does not unearth additional independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Articles in this journal are cited with remarkable frequency for this subfield, so this easily passes Criterion 2 of WP:NJOURNALS. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article is now updated with additional independent sources that clearly establish notability, including a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation that explicitly states that it's a top journal in its subfield, easily satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNALS.

Now updated further with more independent references, including Barbara Partee's contribution to The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, which names the journal as part of a notable development in the field, thus satisfying Criterion 3 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botterweg14 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Janssen/zimmerman ef: not independent (Zimmerman is an editorial board member); Philips reference: self-published blog; Haspelmath: in-passing mention on a blog; Partee ref: impossible to evaluate without a clearer link; Potts: self-published blog and also not independent (Potts is an editorial board member). So, no, "speedy keep" is absolutely not justified. Rhetorical question: if this journal is so crucial, how come it isn't indexed in any selective databases? --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have now updated the article again so that it cites an earlier edition of the SEP article, for which Theo Janssen was the sole author. Since Janssen is not among the 403 members of the editorial board, this is an independent source. Since this settles the issue of notability, we can discuss your other concerns about the other sources on the article's talk page if that is what you would like to do. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its publisher, Linguistic Society of America. Not notable, per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of citation counts as a criterion for inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

)

~~Keep~~ Weak keep. A 2023 impact factor of 1.1 according to Journal Citation Reports (thus meeting WP:NJOURNALS); highlighted as a significant journal in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as noted by Botterweg14. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, it doesn't meet NJournals. Clarivate now also reports an IF for journals included in ESCI, but ESCI does not convey notability as it is known to be less selective (even including some predatory journals). --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think J. Milburn's point was about the magnitude of the impact factor, not about inclusion in ESCI. But once again, this is a moot point given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; point taken about NJournals. My mistake. Changing to a weak keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? I feel like I'm missing something here. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the relevant text of WP:NJOURNALS is: 'For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies (except for journals indexed in the non-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index)'. Maybe that's a good rule, maybe it isn't, but I was wrong when I said that this journal meets the criteria (of that not-quite-a-guideline!) on the grounds of having an impact factor. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you’re saying, but again I think the SEP and Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics sources (among others) establish C1 clearly enough that this is a moot point. Hence my surprise at your switch to a merely weak keep. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considered to be important by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, meets criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALS Mrfoogles (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's parent publisher's page is already long. Wouldn't be a good situation in which to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the quote given, it's quite obvious that the Stanford Encyclopedia cite is just an in passing listing, without any in-depth discussion of the journal. No way is this a meet of NJournals criteria 1. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to add related information (I'm not an involved Wikipedia person, so I won't try to provide judgements on keeping or not), SemPrag is likely not behind in progress of notability in comparison to the other three main journals in formal semantics. E.g.: WorldCat for SemPrag is on pace with Natural Language Semantics's WorldCat library inclusions. I'd also like to reiterate a previous comment above: In her discussion of the history of formal semantics, care is taken by Barbara Partee (well-known to be one of the most influential semanticists alive today) to situate the journal within her sub-discussion of the then-recent rise of semantics and pragmatics being considered a unified research area (p. 28). She does not try to discuss the journal and its status in full, but the intent seems clear. Anmkato (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What C1 says is "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." It does not require extended discussion in the aforementioned reliable sources. If it did, then inclusion in a selective indexing service would not on its own suffice to establish notability. In this case, what the SEP says is "The most important journals in the field are Linguistics and Philosophy, the Journal of Semantics, Natural Language Semantics, and Semantics and Pragmatics". So even putting aside the supplementary Martin Haspelmath and Colin Phillips references, this is top notch sourcing for the claim that this is not merely an influential journal in its subject area, but in fact one of the most influential. That clearly satisfies C1.

Of course, notable topics can sometimes be impossible to cover due to lack of appropriate sources, but that's a separate issue and I would be surprised if anyone felt it applied here. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the difference between an in-passing mention in an encyclopedia article, no matter how laudatory, and a listing in a selective database is that the former is the opinion of one or two people, whereas the latter is the result of an in-depth examination by a committee of specialists. As an aside, while not ideal, I could live with a merge as suggested by Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If that's what makes a difference, then your objection isn't with the absence of an extended discussion in the cited source, but rather that you don't regard the Stanford Encyclopedia as reliable. If that is the discussion you want to have, we can switch to having that discussion. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article does not qualify for a speedy keep; feel free to revise your !vote if you still believe it should be kept. Additional views about the proposed merger would also be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botterweg14, I didn't say that this encyclopedia is not a reliable source. I said that an in-passing mention does not meet NJournals (and even less WP:GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 August 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 speedy delete‎ as a WP:G7 per author request in this discussion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White House/Residents

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

Rejected speedy deletion. This article is a duplicate of List of presidents of the United States, except George Washington. I do not see this article being a suitable redirect for anything given its weird name. Is this the wrong namespace? -1ctinus📝🗨 12:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1ctinus. It is not a duplicate of the list, this is a subpage of White House containing the collective navboxes of the U.S. presidents and several First Ladies, It is added to the page White House in the navbox section in lieu of two collapsed navboxes which wouldn't format due to software restrictions. Maybe another name (White House/White House residents 1801-present), but this seemed descriptive enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, this page can now be speedy deleted, the underlying problem was solved at the Help desk. Thanks for your quick actions on behalf of the project! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be moved to the template namespace, as per Help:template, A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. This article does not seem like it was intended to ever be read alone. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1ctinus, it's not an article, just a collection of navboxes which is now solved by the help of the Help desk and present at the White House page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 28 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.

Airalo

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

Can't see that the sources establish notability. I am always most suspicious of articles with little or no content & citing beyond the raising of funds, which are almost invariably run of the mill stuff. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Technology, Software, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wired article covers both the concept of an eSIM and in-depth instructions on how to use the software. Source 6 devotes a few paragraphs, and the WiT article (and the lesser-known Silicon Canals thing, which I'll AGF) is entirely about the software, thus satisfying significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junior World Series of Indoor Cricket

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

This article survived an AfD in 2010, but since then WP:GNG has not further been established, and the article is unreferenced. A quick search reveals little coverage and nothing in depth. Fails WP:OFFCRIC and WP:GNG. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Tagar

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

BLP without any demonstration of notability. It was tagged by Klbrain with a PROD in April 2024; the PROD was objected to with some discussion of improving it. Fast forward to August 2024 and nothing has changed. No proof of notability so nominated for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and there seems to be no interest from editors in the alternative proposal on using the text as a core for an article on psychophonetics. Yehuda Tagar seems to be a practitioner who frames his practice as an institute, but doesn't seem to be recognized expert in the discipline. The references all support psychophonetics as a topic, but not Tagar. Google scholar shows about 3 publications from Tagar. The page seems promotional. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Psychology can be a very high-citation field but he has very low citation counts, so he does not pass WP:PROF#C1. And heading organizations might only be cause for notability if those organizations themselves are notable independently from the subject, for which we have no evidence. The claim to have founded psychophonetics is made implausible by Google Scholar searching which finds the term to be used for subjects related to psychoacoustics going back to the 19th century and Jan Baudouin de Courtenay. Perhaps Tagar uses it in a different sense but that other meaning seems to be the more common one. So I tend to agree with the comment mentioned by Klbrain that retargeting rather than deletion might be a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Kongolo Antonov An-32B crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth, significant nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into An-32, the article itself is a stub and also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nothing much to expand upon in the An-32 category, although the entry in List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents, could use some improvement to pertain the little information shown in this article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonov An-32. This article barely passes notability guidelines given and all of the content is mentioned inside the An-32 aircraft article under accidents and incidents section. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AsianWiki

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

Not yet notable by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. All I could find was some of their photos getting photo credits in film articles on some mainstream news websites [18], and some passing mentions of "...according to AsianWiki..." in a few film news articles [19]. SimilarWeb says they get 7 million hits a month, so per WP:INHERENTWEB we should expect more coverage of them in reliable sources, but I couldn't find it. Wikishovel (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, and Asia. Wikishovel (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big site, sure, but it fails GNG. I was just considering to PROD this for its poor referencing and lack of notability when I refreshed the page and saw it had been AFD nommed. As a side not, the "alternative" section details an AsianWikis dot com, which seems to be unrelated to the bigger AsianWiki. Wikis plural happens to look the exact same as AirDates TV, another site the article creator made an article of (and which they have been inserting into random articles). Wuju Daisuki (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks, I hadn't noticed that about AsianWikis dot com. It does indeed appear to be unrelated, and article creator has already used that site as a reference in an article [20] and a draft [21], along with the episodeairdate dot com one you mentioned. Wikishovel (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbër Deliu

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 74 minutes in Albania's highest league and several seasons in the semi-pro second tier. I found no sources that weren't databases or otherwise not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Hallunaj

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. 2 matches in Albania's highest league and four seasons in the semi-pro second tier. I only found sources that were databases, primary, Wordpress blog sites or trivial such as this. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [22] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Cantonment Board School

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

Other than some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage about this school. The school fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Most pages in fact, 50% of all pages about schools need to be deleted then, You delete pages with significant coverage as well, There are several sources talking about the instituition and about it. There are not just passing mentions, Not every instituition will get significant coverage, Yes, just because a school exists does not always mean, It should get it's own page. That is correct. However some schools get attention from Independent and Non-Independent Newspapers, News Portals and Websites, Those are the ones that I am creating now, I might have made mistakes in the past, However I now kind of understand. And, in my opinion, this system sucks, If a page gets deleted, and then the topic gets high attention and coverage from many sources, It will still be deleted because It has some similiarity of the page when It was previously deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources (see WP:SIGCOV). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all citations just mention the name, Some citations do provide some other information, that is why I put citations that just mentions the school next to name or other text. There are thousands of pages with citations that just mention the name and nothing else that remains and does not get nominated with, and those pages are seen by hundreds or even thousands, yet no nominations, Meanwhile pages like this one have information get nominated for deletion, despite giving more information than just the name. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk)

I will try to find more sources to the school BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 references in the article. Reference 6 is written by a teacher of that school (WP:PRIMARY), and the remaining references are either passing mentions or directory listings. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School

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

Other than some passing mentions, there is no coverage about this primary school. There are million schools like this in Bangladesh, we don’t create article just because it exists. The school fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument for why it should be deleted has several problems, You said "There are milion schools like this in Bangladesh'', This is factually incorrect because there are about 5 to 8 times less schools in Bangladesh than you said, Even though the report is 3 years old, not many instituitions have been created in just 3 years. And also, It would be grammatically correct, if you said ''there are millions of schools like this one in Bangladesh,'' I think you forgot to add s to article. I also have spelling problems and also problems in grammar, The spelling and issues in grammar are not really the problem, Contradictions are the problem. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Most pages in fact, 50% of all pages about schools need to be deleted then, There are several sources talking about the instituition and about it. There are not just passing mentions, Not every instituition will get significant coverage, Yes, just because a school exists does not always mean, It should get it's own page. That is correct. However some schools get attention from Independent and Non-Independent Newspapers, News Portals and Websites, Those are the ones that I am creating now, I might have made mistakes in the past, However I now kind of understand. And, in my opinion, this system sucks, If a page gets deleted, and then the topic gets high attention and coverage from many sources, It will still be deleted because It has some similiarity of the page when It was previously deleted. There are not milions of schools in Bangladesh, That is factually incorrect, You are just saying factually incorrect stuff and try to make sense, Just because you have a high edit count, and there is less sources of a instituition than others does not mean It will be deleted, Instead of constantly nominating pages for deletion, It is better to find sources, Improving the page and if unable to find any, then it makes sense to nominate it for deletion. I will try to find sources about the instituition. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources (see WP:SIGCOV) rather than adding 17 passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all citations just mention the name, Some citations do provide some other information, that is why I put citations that just mentions the school next to name or other text. There are thousands of pages with citations that just mention the name and nothing else that remains and does not get nominated with, and those pages are seen by hundreds or even thousands, yet no nominations, Meanwhile pages like this one have information get nominated for deletion, despite giving more information than just the name. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are passing mentions, directory listings, or talks about a teacher dies in road accident. As i mentioned above, there is zero WP:SIGCOV about this school. Most of them are also unreliable. Please provide sources that are SIGCOV and reliable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Chakrasali

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

Ostensibly well sourced, the references all fail to show any notability. Two are 404 errors, several are what he said, in which we have no interest, a couple are press releases. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDMT Prabhavati Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Odisha. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Even there's only primary sources, that warrants an own article about the school. So, it's not a valid reason for deletion. Further please see the google reviews to see it's existence Veejs7er (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Secondary schools were once inherently notable, and many articles were created on that basis. That changed a few years ago. Schools must now pass WP:NSCHOOL. Existence is not sufficient. There must be notability. This is irrespective of the date the article was created 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Indus Shield

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

I don't see how this meets NEVENTCRITERIA. There are several issues. I don’t see evidence of WP:LASTING impact, or even WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP is not a newspaper. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a WP:DIVERSE coverage of the exercise and it passes WP:NEVENT therefore the article should be kept.[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] War Wounded (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can these sources be evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM College of Engineering and Technology

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG. Existing references are useless to show WP:N 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Law College

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Institute for Management Development

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voyageurs Area Council

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

Blatant use of Wikipedia as if it's an extension of their website and this doesn't meet WP:NCORP. That it's likely incorporated as "non profit" and their pesence in MN, WI and MN is not within the intentions of WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pages about organizations/companies that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP don't qualify to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and there's room for merging/redirecting as articles such as Scouting in Minnesota and Scouting in Wisconsin exist (as a valid alternative to deletion) – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid:, Yep, merge was my first thought, however being that there's no single suitable target being it is relevant to MN, WI and MI, and the article unambiguously failing NORG, it leaves deletion as a reasonable option. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the alternatives to deletion like Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Cid

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

Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 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!} 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Kohoutek

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Lack of sources, no significant coverage. Insignificant footballer with only 12 starts in professional football, last being in May 2022, more than 2 years ago. Maybe one day he will restart his career, but WP:NOTJUSTYET. FromCzech (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were added references and sources to prove media coverage. At the end of the article there is statement about WP:STUB, which is perfectly sufficient and says that anyone can improve the site by expanding it. Pospeak (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability still not proven, sources still unsufficient. FromCzech (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been proved by adding 3 references and 3 external links. That is more than many others footballer pages. Perfectly sufficient for stub. Pospeak (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech I saw you edited the page Ota Kohoutek recently. Am I to understand that you agree to keep it? Pospeak (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. FromCzech (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 resources of total were added to the page. Pospeak (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3 references and 5 external links are sufficient enough for stub. — Note to closing admin: Pospeak (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did he year Brno a year ago? If his career was ongoing, I might have said draftifty. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean draftify per above? I would be OK with that, a reasonable compromise. Currently only three sources are used, one is about his father not him, one is about his debut, which doesn't demonstrate any notability, and one is about his club's success, not about him. FromCzech (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to change someone's free opinion? This is a democratic discussion (which would not be necessary if you were not a deleting hardliner). Three references and five external links prefectly demonstrate notability. Pospeak (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing anyone's opinion, I'm just trying to spark a discussion because the post was unclear. It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the quantity. And that was nowhere near achieved in this case, as I analyze above. FromCzech (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear about the keep statement? As I wrote earlier, 8 sources (containing one full-length interview) is more than many others footballer pages have. Perfectly sufficient for stub. Pospeak (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 sources (5 are external links/databases). Interview does not demonstrate notability. This article cannot be compared with others, where sources proving notability may exist but they are just not used, while here there are none such sources. If you know about a page, where you doubt the existence of significant coverage, you can nominate it for deletion, and do not use it to defend existence of this one.

I am asking user GiantSnowman, who also mentioned "delete", to elaborate on "no evidence of notability". The author of this article is not interested in hearing it from me. FromCzech (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
External links are irrelevant - what we need are detailed, significant in-line references. Do we have that here? Giant Snowman 14:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you don't know much about the Czech media, so I'll explain it to you. Znoj-tyden.cz is a weekly newspaper from the Znojmo District with more than 20 years of tradition. It is the most read newspapers in the region with almost 6,000 followers on Facebook. More than three and a half million people visit Denik.cz for news every month and with 1.8 million readers, it is the most read printed newspaper in the Czech Republic. Again, these references are perfectly sufficient for stub and demonstrate notability, because what else should demonstrate it more than an interview in the most widely read newspaper in the country? If you disagree with this, then name me which sources you think are notable. And consider that this is a player from a minor league team, so he's unlikely to get into Sports Illustrated or L'Équipe like the vast majority of players. Pospeak (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Znojemský deník is a branch of Deník.cz of local importance. Similarly, Znoj-tyden is also only a local media. All the sources used, apart from the databases, write about an 18-year-old boy who scored a goal on his professional debut, which is certainly a grateful topic for club pages and local media, but does nothing to support what makes this boy so significant that he deserves his own page in the encyclopedia. Their content is, first of all, one event, not the career and life of the person in question, primarily because his career and life are still ahead of him. But how few games and minutes he's played, and that he hasn't played in a professional competition since September 2022, speaks loudly against his importance. FromCzech (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is that you are trashing other people's resources, while the pages you created have the same ones. Yes, this is how denik.cz works, that it has local editors, but that does not change the fact that it is an important source that is widely cited. Pospeak (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clarifying the mystification about the intraregional impact of these media. Otherwise, I have no problem with their reliability. If these sources supported the significance of the player, it would be fine, but they only write about his debut. FromCzech (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he made his debut at such a young age and scored a goal is significant in itself, which is why these articles were written about him. Deník.cz is a medium whose reach in the sports section is nationwide, and I emphasize again that articles from its regional editorial offices are widely cited. Pospeak (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the recently added iDNES.cz does not write about him, it is only a passing mention. FromCzech (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not mean that this resource cannot be used. If only articles about players were used, then you have to delete half of the articles. Pospeak (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used, but is irrelevant to the notability discussion. That's all. FromCzech (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability discussion is supported by 8 additional references and 3 external links, which is clearly more than many other sites, even those created by you. That's all. Pospeak (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references were added to increase notability, articles from the most widespread newspapers in the Czech Republic. Will I get a "keep" statement from you now? Pospeak (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@21.Andromedae: Can you elaborate more on your point? FromCzech (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. It would help to see a source review, ideally in a table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The secondary sources added by Pospeak may show significant coverage to pass GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review Here is my review of the nine sources currently in the article.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
https://www.oefb.at/Profile/Spieler/1168966	Austrian Football Association		List of stats	✘ No
https://www.livesport.cz/hrac/kohoutek-ota/CzW5lcRP/	?	Probably	List of stats	✘ No
https://znojemsky.denik.cz/fotbal-druha-liga/kohoutek-rozjasal-brno-i-otce-prijemny-pocit-reagoval-dlouholety-sef-znojma-2021.html	Newspaper	Probably	? Is from 22 November 2021, covers his first match and is partly behind paywall.	? Unknown
https://www.fczbrno.cz/clanek.asp?id=VIDEO-Stal-jsem-na-dobrem-miste-v-dobry-cas-usmival-se-Kohoutek-7843	Club website	Probably	Is from 22 November 2021, covers his first match.	✘ No
https://www.msfl.cz/hrac/ota-kohoutek	League website	Probably	List of stats	✘ No
https://www.idnes.cz/fotbal/domaci-souteze/fotbal-prostejov-druha-liga-start-sezony.A230302_154300_fot_dsouteze_ald	Newspaper	Probably	Mentions him once in references on him being loaned.	✘ No
https://www.fotbal.cz/repre/hrac/hraci/16333344	Football Association of the Czech Republic	Probably	List of stats	✘ No
http://znoj-tyden.cz/sport/ota-kohoutek-jeste-dva-dny-potom-jsem-mel-husinu/	Newspaper	Probably	Is from 5 December 2021 and is mostly interview with a little bit of prose regarding his debut less than two weeks before.	✘ No
https://www.fczbrno.cz/zapas.asp?ID=Zbrojovka-s-jistotou-postupu-v-kapse-prehrala-doma-Trinec-4524	Club website	Probably	Doesn't mention him	✘ 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}}.

This fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED or otherwise. Alvaldi (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinzona Ladies Open

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

A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a womens Challenger level event that does get outside publicity. Whether its a 2021 event, or Tennis 24, or Tennis Point magazine on youtube. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these 3 sources are primary. We need third-party sources, that is not connected to tennis. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source would only be a primary source if it was directly connected to the event organisers or the ITF, not merely because the source is a tennis-focussed source. Iffy★Chat -- 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not primary sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard a youtube clip of an event as a suitable, reliable source. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT, " To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)". The other 2 sources fails that. Especially one being just a listing of results. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That applies for individual matches, not for leagues or tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT could also apply here. ": An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This small tournament definitely fails that. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITF Women's Circuit UBS Thurgau

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

A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 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!} 06:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 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!} 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chandigarh

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

This incomplete article is basically WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that theorizes a connection between modern Chandigarh and ancient Indian civilizations. ("The land...was probably a part of the Kuru Kingdom...") It existed for many years as a redirect, but was recently reverted. The article fails WP:GNG, both on inadequate sourcing and on WP:NOT, so a delete would be appropriate, but restoring a stable redirect to Chandigarh#History established through AfD consensus would be acceptable too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chandigarh#History. It's much better than this inappropriate spin-out. Deletion would also be fine, but I think an AfD-enforced redirect is probably going to be more useful for preventing recreation. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per asilvering. C F A 💬 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Denmark, Prague

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

A 1 line article which merely confirms it exists. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Czech Republic, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic-Denmark relations as this embassy is non-notable and this shouldn't be given a separate article in the first place. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectper User:Galaxybeing Jdcooper (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the building was architectural history, and the building has its own article on Czech wikipedia, cs:Dům U Černého Noha. I can't decipher all stuff around the history of the house (for example, seems more than one house called Muscon, and cs wiki uses a different name than that I found). Notably, the embassy would have moved in recently, as late as 1990 the Danish embassy to Czechoslovakia was located on U Havlíčkových sadů 1 , Praha 2 , Vinohrady. --Soman (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Bahmani

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

Fails notability, I googled him and didn't find much except few videos and few other things in social media. I also think the page is created by himself. trying to make a resume for himself. the account is banned now. I don't think just coaching a team is enough to make him notable. the article says he won a medal at World Cup (which I can't confirm) but even if that's correct, World Cup is a secondary tournament after the World Championship. Sports2021 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:12, 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!} 03:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [31][32][33][34] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lynch

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

Article remains mostly bare that does not pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island. Skynxnex (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are 25 sources for him on Newspapers.com but they are just passing references or him being quoted about another issue. If someone finds other material please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Lynch was the defendant of the Supreme Court Case Lynch v. Donnelly and was honored by the Rhode Island General Assembly for his service in a delegation to China and his work to redevlop the City of Pawtucket. Furthermore, he was director of Rhode Island's Division of Purchases and served in "numerous other" posts for the State Government. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to a lack of secondary sourcing about the team itself. The only source is primary and does not cover the team itself in any event. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Singapore. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Does not meet notability guidelines. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find any sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The only sources currently in the article are WP:PRIMARY and are not about the team in any event. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only references for the article are official results from International Softball Federation, without any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails to meet WP:GNG. ~~~~ Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LM358

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

A common commercial op amp. In my opinion it does not meet the Notability criteria to warrant its own article. Did not find sufficient independent coverage. It is mentioned but not in depth. As opposed to the 741, which has evident historical significance, the LM358 is not particularly special or impactful in electronics literature. Alan Islas (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with deleting LM358 is that it's a widespread, industry-standard "jellybean" part - they are everywhere, source-able from multiple manufacturers, used in places ranging from audio applications (now obsolete?) but also motion and light sensors, power supplies etc. Perhaps it's so common that it's invisible!

EEVBlog video "The TOP 5 Jellybean OPAMP's" which mentions LM358 right off the bat - "they specifically call it an Industry-Standard op-amp, because it pretty much is"
"Two commonly used op-amp ICs, the LM324 and LM358, have been the go-to choice for engineers and hobbyists alike"
"The ubiquitous LM324 / LM358 / LM321 ... TS321 op-amp family ... who has not used one of these in a design .. ?".

Even the reference on List of LM-series integrated circuits states "Several generations of pin-compatible descendants of the original parts have since become de facto standard electronic components."

I don't know if there's enough "real" sources available to keep this, but as ICs go there's more in this world than, say, 68030s...

Some options might be to expand this article - talking about its ubiquity rather than its characteristics perhaps - or else merge this in Operational amplifier (a new category of "other historically significant opamps"?), or spin it into a general article of historically significant opamps.

Note that there is also the LM324, a quad-channel op-amp in a similar category, and the LM321 (single-channel version). Neither of these have an article, though. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
consider WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering as well Hornpipe2 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Could use a tiny bit of work but I do not see why this should be deleted at all. Already a lot of other similar articles but for different part numbers and they all seem in-line with what is needed. If it must be deleted then please make sure all these parts and their info end up somewhere else - I could see all of these part numbers being combined into a single article perhaps or grouped by similar function. But I think it's fine the way it is / just needs some TLC. Colinstu (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:45, 13 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!} 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

As another user said, this is an industry standard since the 20th century.

Its worthy of a wikipedia page, but needs a bit of work. 176.12.177.191 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the keep arguments are not policy based, but seem much stronger as a merge argument. Is there a valid merge target? Are there sources that would indicate an article of sufficient length to be useful can be reliably sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate Hong Kong

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

I realize this is controversial, but the game doesn't appear to have sufficient independent notability and the primary topic for title would be Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Hong Kong. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case has been made why the current sources are insufficient. Additional sources are also easy to find via a quick search (1 2 3 4). No WP:BEFORE was done here. Cortador (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Found sources with SIGCOV from BBC News[35], Bloomberg[36], South China Morning Post[37][38], Hong Kong Free Press[39], The Straits Times[40], Taipei Times[41], Eurogamer[42], United Daily News[43], Liberty Times[44], etc. An obvious pass of GNG and I agree with Cortador that clearly no BEFORE was done prior to this nomination. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Astronomy, and Biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 09:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [45] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to indicate that this is an independent 'theory' in its own right rather than just an epicycle or fudge factor to try to get creationism to fit the observed facts. Could be appropriately and adequately covered here. Brunton (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with moving the contents to another article if the topic is deemed not worthy of a separate article by a consensus. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies or Delete, i don't know if you can redirect a maybe plausible search term to an article without mentioning in the target. Struggling to find even that much. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to young Earth creationism, which this is a minor variant off. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:

Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.

StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies, see no reason it can’t or wouldn’t be mentioned there. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the correct solution (otherwise Keep). It's obviously creationist claptrap, but that's not a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia shouldn't be the guardian of scientific orthodoxy. Athel cb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the term "time dilation creationism" is used enough to make a redirect necessary. Googling it brings up hardly any hits, several of which seem to originate with the article here. It doesn't seem to be a thing. Brunton (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Transport Employees Front

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

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination was one of nine made in under 10 minutes, all related to trade unions in Kerala, all with exactly the same cut and paste nomination, all containing the same vague wave at NEWSORGINDIA. None demonstrate any WP:BEFORE, nor show any searching in local language press, although the editor who nominated these appears familiar with Kerala. I'd appreciate if this could be relisted so I can have a chance to search for sourcing - I've addressed four of these nominations (all in my opinion keep), but the time required for each one is longer than I have before this hits the seven day threshold. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Association

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

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no CORPDEPTH and General notability requirements. No significant sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cut and paste mass nomination (nine in under 10 minutes), no apparatent WP:BEFORE; NB WP:NEXIST, state of the article is not related to notability. A state-wide, almost 60 year old trade union with 10,000+ members is going to have off-line sourcing in Malayali. Notwithstanding that, simple searching in English shows RS to satisfy the GNG: The Hindu covers 58th State Conference (2024), Women KGOA members protest, The Hindu (2023) protests by the KGOA (2022). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If similar articles have the same issue, you can cut and paste the same rationale. No big deal. Comment on the merit of the argument, not the person. Avoid ad hominem attacks and maintain civility. Notability is not determined by age or member count. The sources you cited are mere "routine announcements" from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't know about other countries, but in India, any organization can pay to have news about their events published. Clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, read it carefully and compare this subject's so called coverage. Gan Favourite (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vague wave of WP:NEWSORGINDIA cannot substitute for specific soruce analysis or evidence of paid editing related to the subject. The sources are not routine announcements and this is misapplication of routine. A news report about a protest would not indicate that a protest is per se notable, but would contribute towards the notability of the organisation which led the protest. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seidel

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

Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does not appear to be notable as an architect or through WP:PROF, but I found and added to the article seven reviews of four books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the entry about him in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction goes some way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I see very little impact - low sales (checking Amazon although that's not 100%), not carried by many libraries (checked books in WorldCat), reviews only in niche journals (with Counterpoise being the best known). I'll go with Weak delete but I think that's generous. Lamona (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Like Lamona's !vote, just on the other side. I don't think David Eppstein's sources show a WP:NAUTHOR pass so much as a pass of the one book specifically (the others only have one review each). But we don't have an article on that book to redirect to, and I don't think it would be helpful to do that anyway. The SF encyclopedia entry helps, a bit. Meh is right. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of sources on Newspapers.com
- Laffoon, Polk (1973-08-31). "Peter Seidel: one man against waste". The Cincinnati Post. p. 39. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Wall, Tom (1973-12-12). "Using city land better: one man offers an idea". The Cincinnati Post. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Thomas, Jo (1970-07-08). "'Green belt' plan may help to slay the inner city dragon". The Cincinnati Post. p. 30. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Sanger, Carol (1971-02-23). ""This city is livable; New York frightens me"". The Cincinnati Post. pp. 36–37. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why did you delete the bibliography? -1ctinus📝🗨 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr vulpes. C F A 💬 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Dr vulpes has removed from the article the material that my comment above uses as the basis for notability: his published books and their published reviews (which consistitute in-depth independent sourcing about his work). They can still be found in the article history at Special:Diff/1241527127. Dr vulpes: this behavior comes across as inconsiderate of other editors, disruptive, and prejudicial to the AfD, since additional AfD participants will no longer see these sources before formulating their opinions. Please revert yourself, for the books at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein sorry about that I've correct the issue. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be several sources even that are not in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nayatel

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article mostly relies on sources tied to the organization, GENREL sources and even sources thats falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The company is a regional ISP and citations are mostly reliable newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isoceles-sai, Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I count 4 non-promotional articles in national English language newspapers. Another 2 non-promotional articles in technology press. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP they are prividing 300 MB fiber internet, even PTCL is not providing 300 MB. Partner of FB as per DAWN.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, This was WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Dawn (newspaper) is RS for Pakistan. There are other sources as well. FB partner with this org showing it is leading in country. Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the !keep votes give any rationale for no deleting the article. No SIGCOV and I agree with the nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Czech Airlines wasn't flying to in February 2024, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Czech Airlines only flew to four destinations in February 2024, all of which are already mentioned on the Czech Airlines page, making this page redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical sourcing for that (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely sourced to old timetables published by the airline (e.g., this one), or to the company website, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business, particularly if they're about to cease conducting business! The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This airline literally only flew to four destinations "As of February 2024". What is the point of listing places it possibly used to fly to at some point, but didn't fly to in Feb 2024, based on original research in primary sources? If the answer is "because of historical importance", then where are the historians covering this topic? PS - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Malta destinations which recently closed as delete, which also covered an airline whose destinations were all "terminated", and where you made substantially the same arguments. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To expand on the WP:OR issue discussed above, take the listing of Tirana as a "Terminated" destination on this page. This is cited to a 1966 pamphlet issued by the airline, but that surely doesn't support a claim that the destination was "terminated" in February 2024? In fact there's no way to reach that conclusion with this data, because even if Tirana isn't included in Czech Airlines' current services, there's a bunch of different reasons why that might be so that don't involve them previously having gone there but now having terminated the service, including errors in the original claim (or the later claim that they don't fly there), Tirana having been a destination they planned to go to but never went to, Tirana being part of a wider network, and the flight still being operated.

In fact, according to the airline website, Czech Airlines do still fly to Tirana.

Now this might seem like a minor, one-off error, but in fact this entire list was largely assembled using the same approach of synthesising primary sources to reach a conclusion that they don't actually support. Moreover this is repeated across the entire corpus of airline-destination articles as a whole. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. A list of every place this airline has ever flown to since it started operations 100 years ago feels like a collection of trivia. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no reason to delete this - as per the other AfDs I'm not convinced WP:NOT applies and the destinations are well covered in WP:GNG. Furthermore, this airline is ending operations in less than two months, so this currently and will serve as encyclopedic information about places they flew. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to note is that those claiming WP:NOT - there's no broad consensus about whether these actually fail WP:NOT as a group at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not PROMO for companies to advertise their services. Fails WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this is advertising is utterly laughable. Sorry to OSE, but I take it you'll be nominating List of McDonald's products next? Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askew Saddlery Company

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

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Games

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP, only local coverage or related to Rockstar. Maybe redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games? IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Florida. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of repackaged press releases and passing mentions, but I don't see any significant coverage. Donald Albury 17:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition § Development~~ The issues with the remasters when it released in November 2021 made them known as people wanted to know who was in charge of the kerfuffle. [46] Their name change in 2020 had to be in anticipation of the remasters because Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas. – The Grid (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:XY, this is not a good redirect target as the company is known for several games, including multiple Ark: Survival Evolved games. Grove Street is a reference to GTA: San Andreas is false; the name is explained in the article. IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I thought for sure it was because of GTA but surprised it's a Gainesville (and most likely University of Florida) moniker. I rescind my vote. – The Grid (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a game developer has its output assessed and judged by independent in-depth reviewers, then it constitutes significant coverage of what the company does, i.e. of the company. And I believe that has happened in the case of Grove Street Games. Geschichte (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. Note that the article currently doesn't mention reception of the ported game versions. IgelRM (talk) 15:09, 20 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!} 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the available sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing the notability of the company itself. Ideally, a good redirect candidate should be identified but in the absence of an agreement, deletion is the only remaining option. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd agree with Geschichte here except it seems that almost all of their games are ports, so the list of games they've developed is a bit misleading for notability purposes. (ie, the game itself is notable, but is the port of the game notable?). -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, especially if the company is known for porting video games. From doing a search, three examples: Nixxes Software, Bluepoint Games, and HexaDrive. – The Grid (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the company is known for porting video games, such that there is extensive secondary coverage of its ports of those video games, yes, I would agree that we should have an article on it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, consider the appropriateness of a Redirect to List of video games published by Rockstar Games (where the subject is mentioned) as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the redirect: I don't think that's terribly helpful. That article will show up in a search, if someone looks for "Gove Street Games". But I think someone who gets directly linked to that article, having expected an article on Gove Street Games, will be very confused. I'd !vote for deletion of it if it were at RFD on WP:ASTONISH grounds. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godenu

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Some of the sources linked in the article (like the first and third) don't even mention "Godenu". The fourth source mentions Godenu only once, as the "Gbi-Godenu Volta Region IFAD/SCIMP Project", seemingly a different thing. The second source does mention Godenu, but it's pretty brief. Other sources linked aren't reliable or aren't independent. I can find mentions of Godenu, like in this article, but that's it. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Geography, and Ghana. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 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!} 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't see any reason to delete this, the problem is it should probably be at Gbi-Godenu instead of its current title. Searching the ruler brings up multiple hits even once you scroll past the primary ones. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per toweli's comments. There's no significant coverage about this article. Galaxybeing (talk) 10:43, 20 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!} 19:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and because RS don’t support this. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Sporting Flyer and:

https://www.royalhouseofgodenu.org/Godenu/ https://www.gbiviwo.com/gbi-godenu-chiefs-queens https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/V-R-Ensure-proper-training-for-recruits-to-save-lives-ndash-Gbi-Godenu-divisional-chief-1836368 https://gna.org.gh/2023/08/clashes-between-gbi-godenu-residents-and-police-leave-two-dead-one-injured/ http://1900.ethnia.org/polity.php?ASK_CODE=GHTF&ASK_YY=1945&ASK_MM=04&ASK_DD=15&SL=en[] https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/2-die-1-injured-12-arrested-following-clashes-between-police-residents-in-hohoe/ Djflem (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Participants, plesase don't dump a bunch of bare URLS in a discussion with no explanation or sense of priority. Use your experience and knowledge and highlight 3 or 4 of the best secondary source in the form of diffs, please. You all know how to do this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]