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

< November 15	November 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Black Friday (musical)

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

The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starkid Productions per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was this review in the student newspaper of Fanshawe College. Clearly not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [1] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniqah Choudhri

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The necessary sources are not there. We get a review in a reader-created, online text; routine announcements by booksellers, such as this; the Tribune "about" page on our subject in her capacity as a journalist in its staff; a couple of articles written by our subject, here and here; and so on. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR as the recipient of two poetry prizes. That is enough critical attention as an author to pass that WP:SNG criteria in my opinion. Also the verifiability issues are over-stated here, because the non-independent sources being used are doing so in compliance with WP:ABOUTSELF. It would be better to have more independent coverage, but that is not necessary when an SNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

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

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [2] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the respective gubernatorial elections (where another source other than Ourcampaigns can be found). I agree with 1ctinus's view that it is unnecessary to have separate articles on the election to every individual position when they took place at the same time. If we can combine (e.g.) presidential and vice presidential elections at the national level in almost all cases (like 1891 Brazilian presidential election or 1910 Mexican general election), it seems somewhat odd not to do so at sub-national level. Number 5 7 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nindu Noorella Savaasam

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. First two sources are about the remake and I can find no significant coverage to establish notability for the original here. Creation by UPE and redirect edit warred by IP so I would not recommend a redirect as an ATD unless it can be fully protected to avoid disruption. CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Telugu#Fiction: had 400+ episodes, relatively notable cast; each episode is covered in bylined articles (with a lot of synopsis, true) in the Hindustan Times (in Telugu) see https://telugu.hindustantimes.com/topic/nindu-noorella-savasam-serial/news; or on News18. https://telugu.news18.com/news/movies/bhagamathi-strong-warning-to-manohari-in-today-nindu-noorella-savasam-serial-nv-2567568.html?agreed=5?agreed=5, Opposed to deletion, given it was remade in Tamil and a redirect would keep history and facilitate navigation. -Mushy Yank. 02:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 02:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 (2025 film)

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

Moved to draft based on AfD discussion. Multiple attempts at recreation since that time with several of them being moved back to draft space. Now another SPA creating it in mainspace. Nothing notable about the production and not scheduled for release until a year from now. References are mainly announcements, but again, nothing notable about the production so falls under WP:TOOSOON. Recommend delete and protecting the title at this oint. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War_(2019_film)#Sequel: but given filming has begun and production has received coverage, not really opposed to Keep. Opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Likely to become notable in the near future.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON per above reason TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9News Nigeria

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. This is actually a disputed AfC submission which has been declined several times at Draft:9News Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't support work arounds of the draft process, but even if that weren't the case, this doesn't pass WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Fayad

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

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [3]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a very good deletion argument. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.

Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.

Delete outright for lack of independent sources supporting notability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 16 November 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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no Delete arguments any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

~~Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~ WITHDRAWN due to the new citations provided below. I feel it now passes WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A burn-off pilot never really meant to be aired; only did so for tax benefits (years before David Zazlav would take too much advantage of it). Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added ref to book with significant coverage, also see https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/19/tiger_team/ A redirect might be considered too. Mushy Yank (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 pinging you to ask you what you think of the 2 sources and/or a redirect. Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the book reference is good, but the register one is saying the page does not exist. Is there a better link to evaluate the source? Thanks! DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]

I think these are enough for it to pass WP:GNG, so I say KEEP. Another user voted to delete, so I won't withdraw my nomination. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,@Donaldd23 you can withdraw, if that is what you wish (Wikipedia:WITHDRAWN); only, the closer cannot close the nomination as Speedy Keep despite your withdrawing, that is all. But thanks all the same.@MrSchimpf, what say you? -Mushy Yank. 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep Happy to see the sourcing much improved now. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@MrSchimpf! -Mushy Yank. 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG per the sources found by Mushy Yank. Mushy Yank please take the time to add these sources to the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, thank you for your relist. There's now a possibility to close this as Speedy keep if you think that's helpful. -Mushy Yank. 10:29, 17 November 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.

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed deletion and none of the subsequent edits have addressed my concerns about WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turing test#Tolkien test per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! The player She won Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 ITF W75 Tournaments. As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. SlowPokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SlowpokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Is she saved by WP:NTENNIS? Let's see:

1. She is not a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 2. She has not won even one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. 3. She has not won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. And 4. She does not hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.

Hence, not Wikinotable. For a compendium of tennis players I look elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory of tennis players. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out earlier, her title at the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 is of a high enough level to meet NTENNIS. Has anyone here looked for Russian language sources which could meet GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous link to the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon is dead. (It's actually the 75, but it's not important.) I found a source that shows she has indeed won there, and placed it in the article, so the article qualifies. Changing my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added is just a scorecard. That's not significant coverage. It's like saying every soccer player you can find listed as playing in a professional match is worth having their own page. Shrug02 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link takes us to a scorecard that testifies that she has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, as denoted in WP:NTENNIS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Ovcharenko won 1 W75 doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (so what The Gnome said about GNG still initially still stands). WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (often getting hits on other people with the same name). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a sport that's predominantly popular in singles. As of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key point. Like so many of these tennis articles there is no SIGNIFICANT coverage so they fail to meet the overarching Wikipedia criteria. Just having a scorecard saying someone called J Bloggs won a tournament that the Tennis Project deem noteworthy but the real world and even the WTA see as minor, does not meet the required standards. Shrug02 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing GNG is far, far more important than passing NTENNIS by the skin of your teeth. Score summaries and database sources might well verify an NTENNIS pass but they have no value in a GNG conversation. Also note that WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Note the word 'must' is used here not 'should' or 'could do with'. Significant coverage is not a mere suggestion or an afterthought but an actual requirement of every sports biography article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NTENNIS per above. WP:SNGs do not replace WP:GNG but GNG also also does not replace an SNG. They are two separate and both valid pathways to proving notability. The delete votes ignoring NTENNIS are simply wrong and boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. We don't ignore WP:NTENNIS just because you don't like it.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this article it fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it has only 3 references all of which fall into the category of trivial coverage. This is nothing to do with "I don't like it", it's to do with following the guidelines. Shrug02 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and WP:SPORTSBASIC is only one portion of WP:NSPORT. Someone passing a specific criteria at WP:NTENNIS doesn't have to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as well. That's not how our SNG guidelines work. At the 2022 RFC on sports we weeded out a lot of the poorly written criteria in the individual sports SNGs; what little is left is still applicable and each guidline is not dependent on the others. If one pathway is met, its met.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 WP:NSPORT's FAQ (which WP:NTENNIS is under) that I linked to in my vote is pretty clear. NTENNIS is there "only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Thus, the subject must pass WP:GNG under NSPORT guidelines, which is not the case here - despite searching in-depth about Ekaterina Ovcharenko, where nothing changed weeks after this AfD started. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You are totally misinterpreting that bolded paragraph which states “they are intended to stop quick deletions” in a good faith belief that sources can be found in time. That’s exactly what I am arguing. I believe the sources exist but they are in Russian and likely behind pay walls. Why have NTENNIS at all if everything just goes back to SPORTSBASIC which is essentially a regurgitation of GNG? We should just delete NSPORT all together if that is the attitude. And truncate WP:N to a single paragraph. We have SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a "nonsense", I'm exactly offering you what it says - and you are ignoring the "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline" part. NSPORT itself is a guideline that shows what is likely to have significant coverage and pass GNG. It's not supposed to be a workaround when GNG isn't met - never was. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.

- The second Dagens Nyheter ”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.

- The Sveriges Radio interview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.

- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.

It's true that some of the other sources you have listed are self-made or websites of related zen centers but, as I understand it, primary sources can be appropriate for non-controversial facts in an article about a person. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully Allllllice (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2]^[3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since, despite the admirable efforts at discovery, subject remains bereft of sources confirming beyond doubt its notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Oblivy. Collectively passes WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Fundamentally, this man is notable for his work as a lawyer. Excluding coverage of him for his work in cases, the primary aspect of his notability, seems like a spurious argument. Those sources are directly related to the primary reason he is encyclopedic, so they are pertinent to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then the article needs a major rewrite to incorporate the sources (which were found, I think, by User:Cloventt rather than User:Oblivy) that supposedly establish notability. Muzilon (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.McYeee (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean merge [4] and [5] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 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, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and expand/improve. The historical context provided already clearly goes beyond a dicdef, and it would be astonishing if there were not more sources for this concept, in light of the popularity of games using such a system. BD2412 T 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of BD2412, and I suspect I could have said the same of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee weapon if I had noticed that discussion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, those sources have not been demonstrated. Saying you assume sources will be discovered sometime in the future is not a sufficient rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar returns 21,400 hits for a search for "melee in role playing games" (notably, some specifically reference Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is a melee-themed fighting game with popular Nintendo characters, not yet mentioned in this article). BD2412 T 04:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While melee is commonly used as a term in gaming and I cannot deny that, I cannot find evidence that the term is notable in itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang book. A term has to pass GNG to have an article. Simply being used as part of an unrelated scholarly paper is an incidental and trivial use.

In terms of SSB Melee, the word is used to reference its original meaning of a physical fight. It doesn't have anything to do with the game terminology described in this article. The subsequent game is called "Brawl", also meaning a physical fight.

The best I can see for this article is being redirected to Role-playing game terms or Glossary of video game terms like many similar articles of its kind have been. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect it when there is cited content that could be merged? I could see a merge to Melee. BD2412 T 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [6]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a (gaming terminology) article, it contains significant original research. I would merge/redirect to Role-playing game terms or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep The entomology of the word is probably notable given the sources. At the least there are sources that seem count toward WP:N. A merge to Little Wars is another possibility, but I'm not thrilled with that given how short that article is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This is yet another WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Unless said sources can be definitively shown, such arguments should be seen as holding no water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to everyone: This is yet another "I didn't read the article but I have an opinion anyways" comment. What I'm trying to say is that's it's rude to talk past someone like that. The sources I'm referring to are in the article. If you don't like those sources, please explain why or ask. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 17 November 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, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit on your sources point:

-The first two sources appear to be trivial mentions that just mention that the terminology of melee was used here. Mentions like this, especially for word definitions, need to have stronger substance. If it was a full few paragraphs discussing the importance of the melee term within the context of the games, or as a whole, for example, there'd be stronger substance here.

-The second two (3 and 4) don't mention melee at all, and are just mentioning that the rules of the game made by Wells carried on afterward. This pertains to Wells's games, not to the melee terminology.

-Source 5 doesn't even mention melee, again pertaining to how the rules of Wells's games were adapted to another medium. Source 6 mentions melee, but doesn't elaborate upon them and instead is just using the terminology like a person with game familiarity would. The source isn't about melee at all, and is just stating that melee is involved with it.

Basically everything in this is a trivial mention of the term, and around half the sources don't mention the term at all. This is primarily about Wells's games, not about the term melee. There's no independent notability shown with these sources, especially given there's no real Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 10 independent sources in the Hebrew article, which, together, seem sufficient to establish notability. Whizkin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:

1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him

2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988

3. Doesn’t mention him

4. Passing mention in a brief listing

5. Passing mention

6. Doesn’t mention him

7. Doesn’t mention him

8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)

9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source

10. No longer accessible but looks decent.

That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The es-wiki version is longer but it does not appear to be a specific legal form unique in the law or culture of Spanish-speaking countries but rather a generic local term for a not-for-profit association. I think a redirect is appropriate, probably to Voluntary association but perhaps to Nonprofit organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. In reading the source there are different kinds of non-profit licensing/designations in Spanish speaking countries under Spanish law. This is one of those. Arguably we could redirect and merge this with non-profit. Either way, this is a legal term for certain types of companies that is unique to Spanish-speaking countries which would seem encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails WP:GNG. It may become notable and it might not. It really all depends on whether it gets built. This could incubate in draft space.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

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

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both English and simple-English Wikipedias contain numerous articles about descendants of the defunct Brazilian royal family—individuals whose encyclopedic relevance is highly questionable, especially considering that many do not even have articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia. There is longstanding evidence of coordinated edits by pro-monarchy groups who create such articles as part of a cross-wiki spam effort, aiming to inflate the prominence of these figures. Sturm (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the future head of the Imperial House of Brazil. I see no reason why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I was surprised that his father didn't have one. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just remembered that his older brother, Prince Pedro Luiz, too had a Wikipedia page. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on past precedent of keeping deposed monarchs, but requiring significant coverage of the royal person. In my longstanding standards for nobility, I write, “Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.” I don’t see any coverage at all about this young man - it might be just too soon since he was “promoted”. I recommend, as we often do in such cases, to redirect to Brazilian imperial family or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line. I actually think the article is weakened by the addition today of a lot of detail from his brother's article. There's basically nothing in the article about him personally other than his birth. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the above poster pointed out, very little is about him personally.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sturm (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several relevant news articles that pass WP:GNG.Axisstroke (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright for lack of sources supporting notability. Rafael may well inherit the throne of Brazil one day, but the notability he's after here cannot be inherited. Fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line per WP:ATD. It's a credible search term at the very least, and a redirect to the House of Orléans-Braganza would seem appropriate as well as a brief passing mention of the subject on that page.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as the BLP of the subject passes GNG. The nominator should have done a BEFORE. — Mister Banker (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[7][8] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[9][10], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk)
Keep, from the sources it seems to qualify WP:GNG.Also, Akal Takht is the supreme religious authority in Sikhism and we have wikipedia articles for the head and members of such religious authorities.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "he is just notable, we all know this" are not worth much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with @Adamantine123. Also there are cited enough reliable sources to support the BLP' article to meet GNG. MSLQr (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what are those sources that establish GNG? - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a clearly promotional text, lacking sources that would support the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG, despite all the chaff. The plethora of SPA's curating it does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had little coverage for controversial statements, but that does not help in establishing GNG. Dympies (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same as what Adamantine123 said. In addition it also appears to be decently well sourced. S302921 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "surely, there are sources" just do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keeps above fail to explain how the subject is notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Singh is the primary subject in multiple news stories in national papers in India which span several years. This would seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV guidelines for proving notability through independent significant coverage. Newspaper articles are routinely used to prove WP:GNG at wikipedia; so dismissing newspapers outright as not relevant seems spurious.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the sources. WP:NOTNEWS is very clear on routine coverage. Vague hand waves won't work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As one participant says here, if this subject is notable, then "show the sources". Making claims of notabiity without highlighting evidence, either existing in the article or brought to this discussion, are empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 11 sources in this page. I think that's more than good enough. According to the second source on the page he was featured in Hindustan Times. (I would like to apologise for any formatting errors) S302921 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them address any of the concerns of the nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles." is not a good argument. We don't have articles for Every single number. He was referenced in multiple sources listed on the page and his page has plenty of content on it. S302921 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nom is right, there is some routine coverage of the subject's appointment as the jathedar of the Akal Takht in Indian media, of the type that the policy requires us to discount. WP:SIGCOV for the subject is missing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a broader notable concept. Some topics overlap with others and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

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

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1)	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here	~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing.	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2)	Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Why not?	Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website	This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students.	This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release	This is a press release	This is a press release	There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece.	✘ No
Them	Seems independent to me	For sake of argument	There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's.	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	✘ No
MedPage Today	Why not?	Why not?	Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece.	✘ No
USA Today	USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL per WP:RSP	While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject.	✘ 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}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelier Maldives

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

Disputed draftification, so here we are at AfD. WP:ADMASQ, assuming it to be a corporation, fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:NMEDIA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Maldives. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, this article borders on being speedyable. It’s very promotional in nature. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrinsville Sports

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

Fails basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 17 November 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 procedural close‎. Deletion of drafts is not considered at AfD under any circumstances; they are under the purview of MfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election

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

There's no point of keeping this draft any further, especially when I'm creating a new one instead. Jimbo218 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and procedural close per WP:G7. @Jimbo218 We don't delete drafts at AFD as they are automatically deleted after six month period in draft space. If you want to delete a draft you started and to which you are the only author, you may self-nominate using the WP:SPEEDY deletion WP:G7 template. Please don't bring these kinds of nominations to AFD as it is the WP:WRONGFORUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters

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

The list contains only primary sources. WP:NLIST requires independent reliable sources that discuss the characters as a group. I haven't found any. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 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 Lists. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. Not all of the content should be merged, but that article relies on this one to cover the characters so some of this content should be moved to that one.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the series, but Scholar finds content for Calhoun in this context in Strange Novel Worlds: Essays on Star Trek Tie-In Fiction by Caron, ISBN 978-1476653358. I can see two of three hits in Preview, which looks like a solid three pages of commentary on the character pp. 198-200. Calhoun is also mentioned in a 2018 CBR listicle of best Trek captains. That's kinda thin, but there's a raft of Memory Alpha and other Trek Fandom, non-RS, book reviews, and other associated content with which one could certainly build a Calhoun article if one were to be found notable. Merging is obviously better than deletion, but I'm questioning whether other characters might be as notable as Calhoun, and, if so, whether there is enough RS commentary on the characters such that multiple would be notable. PAGEDECIDE would allow us to keep a list instead of two notable but thin character articles. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and now I see Mackenzie Calhoun already has a standalone article, albeit one not previously WP:SS linked to the list. So, one of our options (with appropriate notice and feedback, of course) is merging Calhoun's standalone article to the list or to the series article. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as three primary sources do not an article make (after 16.33 years, no less), nor suffice to be added to another article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Star Trek: New Frontier is not notable and hence should not exist either? Your comment on primary sources not sufficing for addition to another article isn't policy based, as primary sources can be used when non-controversial on a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're saying that it's not enough to build an article on by itself. Articles need reliable, in-depth citations from secondary sources. We can use primary sources, but that needs secondary coverage to back it up. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Corm II

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

An article was draftified to Draft:Charles Corm II in May 2024 because of lack of notability, but was recreated as a mainspace article by the author in August. It still lacks any evidence of notability of the subject, Charles Corm II. The cited information is almost entirely about his company, CormCo. Time for permanent deletion, in my view. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest the deletion of this article on Charles Corm II. I have been covering Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent for decades. Dozens of totally non-notable personalities, including a slew of politicians and their children, have been included in Wikipedia with absolutely no respect for high-quality evidence, policies. and guidelines. Corm II is a notable person in Lebanon, beyond Lebanon, and in the global investment community. He built a $1 billion+ investment company and has financially backed several notable tech startups, which are now listed in Wikipedia too. He invests through CORMCO, the company he founded to that effect, and hence a large part of the article's focus is on CORMCO as it is the investment vehicle used to carry out these successful investments. Corm II is an investor and therefore does not get, or seek to get, the kind of media coverage Wikipedia usually craves to get. Failing to understand the above is failing to correctly assess the notability of this article. He is more than worthy of being in Wikipedia and I will defend this article as much as needed in what seems to be systemic bias against more discreet personalities and in favor of sensationalist articles about heavily covered nobodies. Kind regards. Caliban31 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Agreed. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Article is sourced to puff pieces that lack clear independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Puff pieces? These are investing books. Caliban31 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with your statement. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable and the article provides high-quality evidence. Additional references should be added. I also do not support the WP:SALT whatever the final decision. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)— Khalifa2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - obviously fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A lot of this article is cited to Investopedia and CORMCO neither of which even discuss Corm II, so this article potentially fails WP:V as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Spiderone, please hear me out:

I am not Corm II nor do I know him personally. I promise. I'm a fan of his late grandfather like many Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent. I heard a lot about Corm II and decided to devote an article to him. Nobody paid me or asked me anything. It was supposed to be the first of a number of articles I plan to author and submit for submission. Yes, I spent a lot of time on it as a way of improving my Wikipedia skills. As simple as that. Also, I have made many small edits in many articles on people, places, and events and I'm surprised you don't see them (I don't even know where this stuff appears).
I agree that the article needs further verifications. I thank you for having taken the time to add your notes and I take good notice of them. If you give me some time, I promise to provide the references you rightfully ask for. Until then, please do not allow the deletion of an article that, once improved, deserves its place in Wikipedia. Corm II should not be penalized for my hastiness in drafting the article.
I, of course, retract my statements. It was my way of stating the famous ''never assume...". I do however believe that people like me, proud Arab Americans, have ''no voice'' on Wikipedia and that pains me.
I commend you for the amazing contributions you have made right here on Wikipedia. I skimmed your page and a few of the articles you authored, and it's truly outstanding work. I admit being an amateur in light of your impressive track record here and only wish to lean more about editing and authoring articles.
Be kind Spiderman, it's a small world. I wish you all the best.

Truly, Caliban31

Caliban31 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the name of his spouse, names of his children, which schools he attended and his DOB? None of this is in the cited sources. It's important to follow the policy of WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Textblock

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

Single sentence dictionary definition cited to a dubious non-sigcov source that does not help notability. I don't think this is the kind of topic that can possibly be its own article. Not opposed redirecting somewhere but no idea where - maybe some kind of glossary of publishing terms, but IDK if we have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bookbinding#Methods, which uses the term several times. Probably helpful to copy the def there as a parenthetical the first time the term is used, so I guess this would be a merge. Should not be a stand-alone article; the term is only useful within the context of bookbinding. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. There's a lot of content on textblock construction in bookbinding books within google books discussing the various ways different cultures constructed and repair textblocks with bookbindings. An article would theoretically be possible if we were to compare different textblock constructions from say Japan versus the Middle East versus Europe, or even the way constructing textblocks has changed across time with different materials. I do think there is room to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. Some examples of sources: [11], [12], [13], [14], 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you gave though is all in the context of the bookbinding process - it could maybe be two paragraphs and that would duplicate the book binding article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be some overlap... A redirect here is difficult though, because essentially the textblock is the main body of a book. This is a term that should be covered in the book article itself (which interestingly doesn't currently name the different parts of a book which I think is a fundamental content gap), as fundamentally books since the time of the codex can't exist without a textblock unless its a scroll. It's such a fundamental concept that to put it into the book binding article alone doesn't seem the right way to cover this.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair but it's not like there's any content to merge here, and it shouldn't have its own page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this page, it seemed to me that there should be some place on Wikipedia that covers this significant type of object, but I also was not sure the best way to do it. Something like a glossary or significant chunk of the bookbinding page seems fine to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Allam

AfDs for this article:

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

And again declined and rejected at draft, speedy deleted previously, zero independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Doesn't qualify through any other means. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was this copied from a Word document? It looks like a CV... This individual is not notable. Sourcing in the article isn't showing notability, I can only find a few PR items in Gnews. Lacks notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted TODAY? Less then 24 hrs later it's back... SALT this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frustratingly told them very clearly that this person was not notable over IRC a few days ago. Declined the AfCs a bunch of times. Salt? qcne (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding any real proper independent sourcing that could salvage this article, which feels promotional, is written oddly, and doesn't even make an attempt to source the individual facts. WP:SALT is appropriate here since it appears that unless blocked, this will continue to be recreated as the editor either won't or can't listen to what other editors have told them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is currently an advertisement on Freelancer for someone to fix articles related to this subject. [15] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely concerning. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To repeat what I said in the previous AfD (yesterday!): none of the sources in the article is independent, and I can't find even a trivial mention of his name in any reliable independent sources. A case of WP:ADMASQ. --bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Time to Salt this one. Edwardx (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Procyon117 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stardew Valley Guidebook

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

The only source that might contribute to notability is the Polygon one, which is surprisingly OK. All the others are unreliable or press-release type, which does not help notability, a search found nothing else.

Also, I have never seen an article on a guidebook before, not that that impacts notability. Do we have any others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Video games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took as examples articles like The Cairo Guidebook, The London Guidebook, and Hero Builder's Guidebook. Ersene (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples. The first one has two pieces of reception so is notable - unsure about the other two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stardew Valley#Legacy, insufficient significant coverage for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an important review from the CBR site. Ersene (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a listicle so I don't think it's enough. CBR is also Valnet which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, listicle + Valnet is not a great combo. Only reinforces the idea that it's not a notable book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, lists the issues of a barely/non-notable magazine and card game, unreferenced, info unencyclopaedic DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformare l'organizzazione dei luoghi di detenzione. Persone transgender e gender nonconforming tra diritti e identità

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

No sources in the article discuss this book, only a few citations with no discussion of the book. A search found no sources that help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepanshi Yadav

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of UFOs

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

Article was created by one editor to document, among other things, "institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process". Originally titled Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure, it was moved by a concerned editor to Timeline of UFOs, as a stopgap measure pending further evaluation. Since then, there has been some discussion on the article Talk page from which it seems clear the article creator doesn't understand WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SELCRIT, or why WP:PRIMARY sources (including links and citations to conspiracy-themed material like [16] and [17]) can't be assembled to WP:SYNTHesize an article in order to highlight a particular theme. There has been some peripheral discussion regarding the usefulness of a rewrite to create a generic "UFO Timeline" article, however I don't see any upside, since it would duplicate content already contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title has been changed once again. Now article title is Timeline of UFOlogy. However the same problems outlined above remain - and a giant WP:LINKFARM has been added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't acknowledge that the conspiracy-themed materials as you referred to before have been removed. Clearly your arguments are mostly targeting pre-2000s content. They have been "sanitized" to some extent and more non-primary references are added. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is still plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff in the article before and after the 2000s: James Fox's movie, Ross Coulthart's book, Robert Hastings (ufologist) book, etc. None of these things are cited as significant or important by any independent histories of UFOlogy or authoritative sources. The timeline resembles more an RSS feed or content aggregator or web scraper search result than an encylopedic article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is willing to do it, I very much do see the upside in keeping it as a generic UFO timeline article. It wouldn't be purely duplicative if it incorporated material from several other pages in a different format. Otherwise, no opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is irredeemably vague. Would the movie Close Encounters be on the timeline? If not, by what criteria would it be excluded? It's a really good movie about UFOs. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly say that that should be included as it had an extremely large impact on the public perception of UFOs and therefore later reports of them, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restricted the title to ufology per suggestion of @Praemonitus The movie is well-known for sure, there's even a book about it (https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/37761), but it would probably not fit into the ufology timeline, because it's fictional and is not intended as research. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest a rename to timeline of ufology as that title seems more appropriate to the subject matter (ufology). Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus, that title sounds good. I have changed the title, hopefully I can convince you at least. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Timothy Good's book. The Timeline of UFOs include efforts from other countries. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. This article lacks any coherent inclusion criteria and most of the sourcing is poor, relying far too heavily upon primary and/or pro-fringe sources. The result is an article that, apparently, is one editor's attempt to create a WP:POVFORK for pro-fringe, and often non-notable, UFO material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be considered pro-fringe in this case? Debrief vs New York Times? I think asking for every entry to credit a source for a topic deeply entrenched in controversy before the 2010s as ufology is not fair. How many of the UFO conspiracy theories are considered not pro-fringe? VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and above suggestion. Note that doing this during the AfD is likely to cause more problems than it solves. Problems with move/scope change should be resolved/repaired, and THEN the list should be brought back here for discussion if problems remain. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article was renamed to "Timeline of Ufology" and I've removed several non-ufology items to reflect that. I still don't think the scope is clearly defined. What criteria determines if a book goes into the list? Would 1950s books by Donald Keyhoe, Frank Scully, or George Adamski be included? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. The book entries should be reconsidered for sure. Only those that introduced key concepts or conclusions (like Edward Ruppelt, Allen Hynek, and Jacques Vallee), first of its kind (like Charles Fort). This is quite straightforward in the STEM fields I'm familiar with editing, but for ufology there are quite a lot of controversies. I think the importance of books will become less and less from the 2020s on because more peer-reviewed research in the field are getting published, so they could become more justified sources of knowledge. Really, I think the sentiment from other editors have to do with the inclusion or disregard of certain books or accounts in the "old days" of ufology (e.g. pre-2000s). VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Timeline of Ufology," but there has to be an agreed-upon inclusion criteria, especially for anything from the 2000s onward. In the digital age it very easy to get things published. You can't have every modern book, TV and radio show, documentary, podcast, social media cast (eg, Spaces on X), etc. Wikipedia has lots of timelines: List of timelines, Category:Science_timelines, Category:Historical_timelines. Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic. 5Q5|^✉ 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic. This is categorically false. jps (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ufology is recognized by most governments to be an important topic Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably not necessary. Timelines are useful for well-attested to histories and progressions. There is not really even a coherent subject matter here as there are combinations of fictions, religions, mental health, hoaxes and grift, military (in)competence, politics, and pseudoscience. Better off dealing with this in narrative/prose form instead of trying to curate a timeline whose inclusion criteria will be harder to figure out than List of UFO sightings. jps (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria is so vague that the article will mislead the readers. Azuredivay (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm on the fence about this as I'm not 100% convinced it needs to be deleted. Ufology is notable in the Wikipedia sense. But to properly be a 'Timeline of Ufology', the inclusion criteria needs to be in the context of extraterrestrial UFOs, including the supposed government efforts to cover them up. The entries should be properly cited by a reliable source. I don't think speculative UFOlogy books should be included unless they satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there shouldn't be too speculative or conspiracy-laden entries in books or other media formats. There are already some entries on the governmental efforts to cover them up in the timeline. It probably requires other editors to make them complete. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Under the new title, this is a theoretically notable subject. UFOlogy is a real thing, and it has developed over time. There have been major events that have shaped it. It should be possible to create this timeline. However, it would need to be constructed from sources which allow us to judge the significance of an event. Those sources will be histories of UFOlogy that place events in context and allow us to sift the significant ones from the insignificant ones. An event cannot be placed on this timeline just because it happened. That way lies only original research. An ideal source would say something like "In 1993, the release of the TV show The X Files caused a surge in public interest in UFOs" (I don't know if that's true, it's just an example of the kind of evidence that would justify putting an event on this list). If someone can make an argument that such sources exist and are of sufficient quality and number that we could build an article around them, then I would be happy to keep this article, but if such sources are not forthcoming, then the article is moribund. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair statement. I'm open to discussions about which entries to keep as some of the editors have already done. For entries whose influence are not immediately recognized, I would use something that came up much later. This applies to many pre-2000s entries. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of last survivors of historical events

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

This list is a good example of what Wikipedia is not about. Per WP:NLIST, a list should only exist "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." While there are a few sources of dubious quality that list general groups of last survivors together, these seem to rely on the existence of this Wikipedia list, as many include Eliza Moore, a once erroneous entry on this list. When her name was removed here, she stopped being referenced in these near Wikipedia mirrors.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given the woefully broad inclusion criterion of this list, this list is. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. This list is, as it contains entries as broad as the last living player from the 1950 World Cup to the last living Currier and Ives staff member. WP:CROSSCAT also applies. Per WP:LSC, "as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per schetm (talk · contribs). Throw this shit into the sun. wound theology ◈ 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been in the crosshairs for 15 years. People like it, people refer to it, and it's not hurting anything. Bkatcher (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:POPULARPAGE, and WP:HARMLESS. Congratulations; you managed to pack 3 separate arguments to avoid into just one short !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague and indiscrimate to be meaningful. Literally every event, organization, group, or office ever has (or will have) a last survivor. This is not a notable grouping or useful form of navigation. Even deleting non-notable people and unsourced entries, this is all pointless trivia that someone will naturally always live longest. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 28#Category:Last survivors for the CfD that resulted in the creation of this list. schetm (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kamenčík

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

His playing career is/was mostly convinced to lower leagues and lasts/lasted a total of 920 minutes so far. I have searched his name in conjunction with *any club he has played for* and "site:.sk", but couldn't find any WP:SIRS. All I found are passing mentions in match reports (e.g. Sport Aktuality, SME, Teraz) and squad list U15 call-up as well as paywalled rumor. Not to be confused with the more notable Michael Krmenčík, who was also born in 1993 but has a different nationality. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazar-i-Sharif–Kabul–Peshawar railway line

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

Another article at Uzbekistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan Railway Project exists about the same topic. This one can be deleted. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination, the IP that restored this article was also a sock of Oriental Aristocrat.[18] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Deorah College

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found, so the subject fails to meet GNG, and thus also fails WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Assam and Schools. GrabUp - Talk 14:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recently deleted via G12 while it was in AfD; a redirect was created by Pharoh, but Goswami21 recreated the article. GrabUp - Talk 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 citations including 2 given by you, removed the history section which lead to speedy deletion, added college website link, digital library link, modified the article, what else do I need to do to remove this deletion tag... Goswami21 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goswami21: The subject fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and is not notable enough to have a standalone article. These sources do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject at all. Additionally, the college website and government sites are WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not contribute to notability. You cannot remove the AfD tag; it will be removed by the closer after a consensus is established. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 citations which I have provided, are well enough to support the article as well as the content of the article... and Btw the article "B. Borooah College" has no objections despite of having almost 90% of the citations are from different sections of their college websites and the article "Arya Vidyapeeth College" also doesnt have any objection... almost all the citations are either from college website or from other government sites like ugc, gauhati university, etc. so why only this article... if there should be a tag... it should be for all the colleges... I can also give citations from the different sections of my college website but as you have said it is unreliable source... I havent... so if it doesnt contribute to notability... so how their college websites contents does contribute to notability and not mine... Goswami21 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goswami21: Please don’t give WP:WHATABOUT arguments here. If you think any other article fails our notability guidelines, you can nominate it for AfD. I agree that the majority of Indian college and school articles do not meet notability guidelines, but they were not deleted because no one nominated them. You said I can also give citations from the different sections of my college website can you please disclose your connection to the subject? Why did you say my college? GrabUp - Talk 17:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different sections of colleges websites has been used as citations by almost all the college articles under Gauhati University... But you said these do not contribute to notability, and btw I Graduated in Chemistry Honours in July 2024 from this college, thats why I referred as my college. Goswami21 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:PRIMARY. The source is connected to the subject as in this case its own website, which is why it do not contribute towards notability. GrabUp - Talk 03:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8 citations I provided well enough defines and support the content I added... it should stay on the website... among the 8 citations 2 were given by you... Goswami21 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goswami21: What do you mean by 2 were given by you? When and which two sources did I give? GrabUp - Talk 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion page of 1st nomination... you have given 4 citations... I added 2 from these Goswami21 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok It wasnt been given you... It was given by other editior... Goswami21 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low (duo)

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

Fails WP:BAND. This is a band whose album was never released. Most of the article depends on sourcing from the memoir of the guitarist, a WP:PRIMARY source. Popcornfud (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They also have a song article at "Tearing My Soul Apart" which uses the many of the same sources in the same fashion. If the band article is kept, the song article should be redirected to them. Or if the band article is deleted, I don't see much reason for retaining the song article even though it (barely) charted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made improvements to the article since its nomination. There are now more secondary sources to establish notability and a reduction in the use of the autobiography source to balance things out better. Their album may be unreleased but the band still released a single that made a chart appearance. I would support a redirect of the song article to the band page, which would give it additional sources relating to the single's reception etc. Ajsmith141 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Mihaylov

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

Mihailov played a mere few seconds in the league and 6 minutes in the cup prior to disappearing. The best sources found are Novsport, Varna 24 and Varna Utre, none of which are even close to showing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One appearance nearly a decade ago does not notability make. Delete. CoconutOctopus talk 13:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, makes no credible claim to notability or significance. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for A7. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Madoyan

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

Played 1 game in the league and 1 game in the cup prior to disappearing. The article also alleges that he played for Armenia U17 at some point. My own searches yielded Cherno More and Varna Utre, neither of which show enough depth for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Armenia, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. CoconutOctopus talk 13:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, makes no credible claim to notability or significance. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was previously deleted, created by sock account, and created again by IP likely same sock and after AFC decline, it was submitted for AFC review again by sock account User:Aloo92. From 14 srcs on the page, 8 are unreliable sources and the other 6 have no significant coverage on the subject to pass WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I came across this page on AFC and was about to reject it after seeing the record of the previous 8 deletions and the poor references cited. But, after some web research(which I do for all pages I reviewed), I found some reliable sources, (i.e: [19], [20], [21], [22],[23] and [24], I believed it met WP:NACTOR and convinced me to grant it a chance for improvement and a notability banner is all that's required, let's wait for the votes. ANU^writes

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.^[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANU^writes 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
Source 4 is passing mention.
Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 13 is dead 404.
Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two or more roles with verification of those roles is not what WP:NACTOR means. Two or more roles give us the presumption that there is significant coverage (not just verification). The coverage here is all churnalism, unreliable, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam Jazz Band

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

Only one [25] source with a brief mention. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 12:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 12:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba Jawara

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

Really not sure what to do here. Looks like most of the media references to this person are to this very wikipedia article, and other links reference or duplicate the content here as well. There's this pdf that mentions someone by the same name and this one as well, but otherwise except for one archived link which I will go ahead and convert to a dubious reference, it's unclear what the story is here, so it would be good if people more knowledgeable than I can chime in, and either update or remove this article. It has been unsourced since 2021. It looks like it was unsuccessfully BLPPROD'd here but I think even with that external link as a reference it should qualify for AfD. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Africa, and Sierra Leone. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Shambhala

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

Seems to be wholly unsourced OR. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Buddhism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shambhala. CoconutOctopus talk 13:31, 16 November 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. A7 CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Allam

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

declined and rejected at draft zero independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Journalism. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nobne of the sources in the article is independent, and I can't find even a trivial mention of his name in any reliable independent sources. A case of WP:ADMASQ. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom under A7. CoconutOctopus talk 13:32, 16 November 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.

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to have significant success in the sport. Less than 130 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. The one source provided is a database. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having won the British Open and being the first player to have been paid by the UK government to play darts, Cosnett has coverage of its time - Sunday Mercury, Black Country Evening Mail for same, Herald Express for same - for this matter, there's a heap of other regional papers who cover him for being the only player at the time paid by the government for his sporting career. Further coverage of him "rounding off his year in style" in the Black Country Evening Mail by winning the British Open, the national darting competition at the time. There's also the Black Country Evening Mail covering him switching careers to enter the pub business (which isn't quite about his sporting achievements, but it'd be weird for a regional newspaper to cover some non-notable bloke applying for a pub license...). I don't have access to the BNA but there's also a story in the Wolverhampton Express and Star entitled "Darts star John off to seek fame", and in the same publication for him not paying his taxes - again, not really about his achievements, but it's hard to think some random unnotable would get the same coverage, let alone labelled a "darts ace". I'm seeing well enough coverage from his heyday to merit keeping the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([26], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Çoruh as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

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

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: ~~The subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN~~ however, the subjects appointment as Chief Electoral Officer was only made today (November 9). Reliable sources may still be in the process of being published, given the significance of this position in government, although some have already been made available. Additionally, the subject is not new to politics, being an established figure in Indian national politics. That said, the article may be considered WP:TOOSOON as well and could be moved to draft status for further development.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the keep vote with a comment now.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mims Mentor: Could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and NBIO? GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject being an Indian Administrative Service officer newly appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Government of Tamil Nadu, falls under the category of WP:NSUBPOL whose members can be accorded presumed notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor: Indian Administrative Service officers are not politicians. WP:NPOL is just for judges and elected politicians. You misunderstood NPOL. Read what is listed in WP:NSUBPOL regarding India: It says, “Members of the Legislative Assemblies and Councils of the States and Union Territories are presumed notable. Members of the Autonomous District Councils may or may not have presumed notability.” There is no way an appointed Chief Electoral Officer is included under NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. While I'm not opposed to deletion (as mentioned, drafting the article could still be relevant), there might still be potential for significant coverage, as the subject was only recently appointed to the role. This could soon meet the general notability guidelines. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this article can be recreated. I am also not opposed to draftification, if consensus decides it. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source may count but would need mulitple sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what Bearian means by reliable source. I certainly think the PBS News Hour is a reliable source. As are others therein ... As far as the sources referring to statements from her ... well ... is there a news source out there that doesn't at some point quote the subject? — Maile (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.

Edit:Removed unsourced content - Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[27]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [28], Mean Machines: [29] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [30]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [31], Nintendo Power: [32]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [33],[34] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagmati Province Cricket Association

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reason,

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom and in all cases put forward.

Shrug02 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot.com

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

I can see a substantial number of articles covering their expansions and deals, but these articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject. They appear promotional or sponsored, with the coverage being trivial and not significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally added the notability tag as it was clear to me this was little more than a promo article. The source support that view. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

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

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.

The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.

When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works

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

I came across this in WP:NOV24. I'm not seeing coverage that would indicate a WP:NCORP pass. This is really just an interview with an employee. This piece is much better coverage-wise, but I'm hesitant to use an editorial without a byline to support a NCORP pass. This is partially a discussion with the owner and partially a statement that it received a grant.

I just don't think the above is enough to indicate a WP:NCORP pass. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Downes

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

Would not qualify for NPOL. If qualified for NACADEMICS, would need some sources to support that, which I'm not seeing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Computing, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation profile in GS looks pretty strong,[35] with three papers >1000 citations, further seven >500 and nineteen in total >100. If there were clear sourcing for co-inventing massive open online course then I'd say that met WP:PROF per #4; I see the article on MOOC cites an article in Times Higher Education for their course being the one to inspire the coinage. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong citations, with all top-cited articles single-authored, highlighting notability Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not finding coverage of the broadcasters of this league as a grouping from secondary sources to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Football. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments at last AFD (which I started!). Giant Snowman 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [36][37][38]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[39]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[40]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lil Wayne albums discography, or Keep. The sources presented in this discussion do suggest that the albums can be considered a distinct collection of work, but the content would fit into a section on the article covering Lil Wayne's album discography. Svampesky (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 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 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I agree that moving the article and name to Chato Chico is appropriate. A report on disaster preparedness said in its introduction, [translated] "The Cura Mori District was created by Law No. 15434 of February 19, 1965, initially consisting of the towns of Cucungará as capital, Pozo de los Ramos, Chato Grande, Chato Chico, Pueblo Nuevo, Buenos Aires, Santa Rosa, Fundo Casaraná, Vega Monteverde, La Para and the town of Chato." Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2020-2022 (PDF). July 2020.. Law No. 15434 sets out the borders, and says in part, [translated] "follow this boundary line to the summit of Loma Blanca and continue until you find the Tabanco road, extending to the Piura River bed, following its course, upstream, it reaches the point of the royal road that borders the town of Chato, continuing to the outer part of the urban area;".

I am not sure why the NGA cross-identified Chato with Chato Chico, but sources now talk about Nuevo Chato Chico in reports like Municipalidad Distrital de Cura Mori. Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2019-2021 (PDF)..

As an aside, the hamlet (case or caserio) of Chato Grande is now quite separate as it was incorporated in 2013 into a new municipality called "Almirante Grau" along with the population centers of the hamlets of Nuevo Paraíso, Ciudad Noé and Nuevo San Pedro. This nugget of information is found in the first report cited above.

It is possible that the town of Chato (pueblo de Chato) of 1965 is the Nuevo Chato Chico of the 2020s. I found nothing explicit saying so. But the town clearly exists both visually and in documentation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, which did participate in an local election, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's true

I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj: While TVK has gained attention due to its high-profile celebrity leader, actor Vijay, and its recent political conference, the article may still fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Most coverage thus far has focused on the party's formation and media events, rather than deep, independent analysis of its policies or political influence. While membership numbers and media attention are notable, the political impact of TVK will only become clearer once it participates in elections. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base

But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of its electoral success are speculative, the party’s actual impact will only be clear once it participates in elections. Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success. While the party's future potential is acknowledged, it does not yet meet the criteria for notability based on current available information. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (for now): I am not casting a strong delete vote, but I do support drafting the article, as it falls under WP:TOOSOON. Given its growing popularity and potential significance within the Indian political landscape, I believe there is a strong likelihood that the article will meet the GNG in the near future. Let me list out my point of view on the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party has not yet participated in any elections. This means that its impact on the political landscape is still to be fully realized. The article mainly cites initial news reports about the party’s formation and its ideological stance, with most coverage focusing on the widely acclaimed and highly honoured actor's background as a celebrity and the announcement of his intentions for political reform. While the article includes substantial media coverage, most of the references appear to be centred around the announcement and some early speeches, rather than detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, including substantial analysis or reporting. At this stage, the coverage of article is mainly superficial, reflecting media interest but lacking deep journalistic inquiry into its policies or broader political influence. For that reason, the article fall short in meeting the WP:GNG.
Finally, while the party’s registration with the Election Commission is underway, its full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene will not be apparent until it participates in the upcoming elections (like the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections). Until then, it remains an emerging entity without substantial political achievements.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about "participating in any elections, impact on the political landscape, detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities, party’s registration with the Election Commission, full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene and substantial political achievements" are not policy based or required criteria under GNG. GNG sources are not evaluated based on personal preferences. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that you consider the points I raised as "personal preferences" rather than recognizing them as general principles that apply to all establishments seeking to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The points I discussed are entirely focused on aligning with the guidelines outlined in GNG, and are not based on subjective preferences. They are intended to reflect the standard requirements for notability, which are consistent across all articles under said category. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are consistent across all articles under said category? From a glance, I can see that many parties listed in Category:Political parties established in 2023 and Category:Political parties established in 2024 have only announced their participation or have only recently created their parties. It still looks more like a personal preference than a general principle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by my comments. Are you confident that all the articles in the categories you mentioned fully comply with the guidelines? Have you reviewed any of them? or were discussions held to retain the articles and considered eligible for inclusion? and I notice that very few of these articles actually have reliable sources to support their notability. I encourage you to present counterarguments specifically addressing GNG, rather than listing other articles that may or may not have passed the notability guidelines. About the party in question, it is important to assess whether it truly meets the criteria for inclusion based on its current status and available coverage. Let's focus on the application of the guidelines, rather than on other cases that may not be directly relevant. And If you believe the article meets the GNG criteria, please provide a detailed explanation of how it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other cases are not relevant here, why did you reply above with "Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success."? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some users argue that this article should remain because it was founded by a well-known actor in India and claim the party has a strong chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections and potentially forming a state government, on the basis of only "popularity". However, this is purely speculative and falls under WP:FUTURE and that is why I referenced the political involvement of two similarly popular actors, to highlight that fame alone does not guarantee political success or notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This party received extensive media coverage because a well-known actor founded it. However, a thorough analysis is needed to determine if it meets WP:GNG. Notably, this party is not even a registered entity, as MimsMENTOR explains well.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC) (you can't vote twice and your deletion nomination is your vote to Delete Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Owais Al Qarni, you do realize that you are the nominator, right? Please strike your vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to have sufficient content that would justify a separate article, the text about the ideology of the party can be merged into the actor's article. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDB since most of the arguments in favour of keeping the article can be seen as a indiscrimnate collection of information/news regarding the announcements and proceedings of the party. Xoocit (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG as it has substantial, reliable and independent coverage that highlights Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s formation, leadership and significant public interest. There is also indepth reporting from its formation to the present, beyond routine announcements. There is no specific requirement for a political party to participate in an election to be notable under Wikipedia standards and currently, there are around 12 reliable, independent sources providing indepth coverage across various points in time, not limited to a single event, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and the WP:SIRS check. WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTDB do not apply here, as the sources provide substantial analysis and detailed coverage of the subject, and the impact on culture/society is evident, with almost all sources being full length articles discussing and analyzing TVK. Moreover, we have around 35 English language sources and several native language sources that have not yet been added to the article. Given that the subject has a median of ~5,000 page views, which I believe likely places it higher than 90% of Wikipedia articles, deletion does not seem appropriate at this time. While deletion might have been plausible if the subject was discussed in February 2024, it is no longer relevant now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Is a merge to Vijay (actor) a reasonable way to address the WP:TOOSOON concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Striking my previous vote to delete. While some coverage appears superficial or promotional, primarily gaining attention due to the actor who founded the party, I have found significant, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject’s formation, ideological stance, and activities. Reputable sources like The Hindu, India Today, New Indian Express, and Economic Times collectively passes WP:SIGCOV and so WP:GNG. A merge or redirect to Vijay (actor) could also be a reasonable option, but I no longer see a reason for deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in some sources for the page on Indian regional political party to pass WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: High volume of sources; I believe GNG is met here, agree with Jeraxmoira. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 16 November 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.

Yagyavalkya Institute of Technology

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

Hardly to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Rajasthan. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any SIGCOV Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed some media coverage for this topic available on their website here. However, as the article has been unsourced for several years, I attempted to add references and make improvements. If the consensus leans towards deletion, I suggest moving the article to the draft space instead. This would preserve the work done so far and allow for potential future updates, especially if significant coverage emerges later. Alternatively, the draft could be moved to my sandbox for further development.
Delete, per others. I'm also unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Svampesky (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[41][42] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf College, Kent

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this college of the University of Kent, and added an independent reference confirming its establishment in 2008. I cannot see significant coverage in independent sources, however - the reference I have added has only one sentence of coverage - , and do not think it is notable independently of University of Kent. I originally tagged it with notability issues in 2022, and redirected it to University of Kent yesterday, but this has been reverted by another editor. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Woolf College meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions and should be kept as a separate article. A precedent for keeping articles on colleges of the University of Kent was set in the Turing College AfD discussion (2018), where the result was to keep the article. The discussion highlighted that Kent is a semi-collegiate university, and each of its colleges plays a unique role in student life, not merely as halls of residence, but with distinct functions such as administrative offices and college masters.

Specifically, the Turing College AfD concluded that, like other Kent colleges (such as Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, and Darwin), Turing College warranted a separate article due to its role within the university and the broader context of collegiate universities in the UK, such as Lancaster and York, which also have articles for their individual colleges. The same reasoning should apply to Woolf College, as it too is a functioning residential and academic unit within the University of Kent.

Historical Precedent: Just as Turing College was retained as a standalone article despite concerns about notability, Woolf College should be given the same consideration. The semi-collegiate structure of the University of Kent supports the argument that each college has independent significance and contributes uniquely to the university.

Consistency with Other Colleges: There is a clear pattern of keeping separate articles for colleges at Kent, and merging them into a single article would risk losing the distinct identity and contributions of each college. The precedent established in the Turing College AfD discussion supports this approach.

Given these points and the Turing College precedent, I believe Woolf College should be kept as a separate article, consistent with the treatment of other Kent colleges. GreenALC (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I would like to expand on my initial points regarding Woolf College’s notability. While the college's primary role is to provide accommodation, it also hosts a variety of academic events, including international conferences and lectures focused on subjects related to Virginia Woolf and broader literary themes. These events contribute to the college’s unique identity within the University of Kent and enhance its cultural and academic significance.

As an example, in 2018, Woolf College hosted the 28th Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, which brought together scholars from around the world. More recently, in 2024, the college hosted a lecture by Professor Rachel Bowlby on the theme of Virginia Woolf and the Property Market, demonstrating its continuing academic engagement with the legacy of Woolf and her relevance in contemporary discourse.

This active role in hosting significant academic events contributes to the college’s function as an academic and cultural hub within the university, much like Turing College, Eliot College, and Darwin College, which have retained individual articles due to their distinct history, facilities, and contributions to the university’s structure. Woolf College, in the same vein, fulfills a comparable function and warrants the same consideration for a separate article.

I hope this additional information helps clarify why Woolf College meets the standards for notability and why it should be retained as a standalone article. GreenALC (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm terribly sorry about this, because I'd rather this were kept but it doesn't pass WP:GNG on the current sourcing and there's simply nothing out there to get it past WP:GNG - which is the standard we are asked to evaluate even degree-awarding institutions against. Presumed notability is less compelling an argument for a relatively new institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does it or doesn't it meet GNG? Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from GNG. Source 1 is a passing mention

. 2, 8 (Kentish Gazette) I can't access (why are they linked through LexisNexis??). 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 are by Kent

. 4 is by a partner, not independent

. 7 doesn't mention the subject

. 12 is an announcement for a seminar held there; trivial, primary, and non-independent

. 13 is a book edited and written by lecturers at Kent; not independent

. 14 is an announcement for a conference held at Woolf College; trivial, primary, non-independent

. 15 is a trivial listing for the same conference

. 16 yet another trivial, non-independent mention as the venue for the conference

.

Even if the Kentish Gazette pieces are both IRS SIGCOV, that's still only one GNG source when multiple are required. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. We'd literally be deleting every timeline on wikipedia if we accepted the nominator's rationale as valid. Timelines are a valid secondary form of presenting content. Per NLIST they are not considered a duplicate or a content fork of an identical topic covered within a prose article. Given that the prose version of the article has lots of WP:SIGCOV sourcing; it would be an easy matter of using those sources to improve the sourcing on the timeline page.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Lists, Colombia, and Nicaragua. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Colombia–Nicaragua relations. If you want to propose a merge so the parent article covers this, you can generally follow the instructions at WP:MERGE rather than nominating it for deletion. That includes just boldly doing it yourself – I doubt anyone would object when no one's really touched it since it was created in 2007. I agree that the main article should have this context, rather than having this unnecessary split. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No sourcing, except for the last sentence in the last entry. There is no verification of any of this list, save that final citation. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change my Delete vote to Merge, makes more sense — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Merge into the Colombia–Nicaragua relations page. Neither is very big. Sheesh. Yilloslime (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

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

Article has remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sock pocket. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Japan. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you search in google books under his Japanese name ("飯田義武") there are lots of scholarly Japanese language military history publications with hits. In just reading the text with the "Found Inside" snippet views, I think it is likely there is WP:SIGCOV of this person in those sources. Unfortunately, they are all snippet view books/journal articles. If an editor with access to Japanese language academic publications were to participate, I think it likely this would be a rescuable article.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only one with preview is this. I struggle to read Japanese with vertical writing but this only has one mention so... This one may not count as WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ja.wiki article is much more substantial and has three offline references. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Books when you search his name in Japanese reveals a good amount of sources talking about him. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "sock pocket"? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are also largely redundant with lists such as List of high schools in New York (state) or categories like Category:High schools in Albany County, New York etc. I'd support moving this information to a category structure (High schools in NYSPHSAA class A, high schools in NYSPHSAA section whatever, etc.) but I don't think any individual section is notable enough to justify getting its own Wikipedia page. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sports. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association per WP:ATD. The content is useful and that article is short. It could contain the content; particularly if we were to restructure the information so it doesn't take up so much space. It's also not outside of the scope of that topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to New York State Public High School Athletic Association. Not notable individually, but we should keep the info. Meters (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, despite the similarity in user names and the coincidence in timing, this is not a duplicate vote. Meters (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  insert the meme of Spiderman pointing at Spiderman here Apocheir (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just a list of schools. Did any of you actually look at New York State Public High School Athletic Association? Yes that main article shows the individual sections but by the time all the content from each of the sections is added, it will turn into a huge article. Essentially, the reason the Sections as individual articles exists is to PREVENT a huge single article. That is what is called organization of the information. The NYSPHSAA keeps their schools in organized sections of like sized leagues of schools for equitable competition. Showing the organizational structure is why these articles exist. Why shouldn't wikipedia duplicate their means of organization? To reduce the number of articles? Or are you wanting to eliminate information? That is not our purpose. We have the information. It reasonably reflects what exists now and can be edited to be kept up to date in the future. It is our job to report what exists. It would be completely irresponsible to merge and then not include all of the content of the eleven sections. Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't lose the organizational structure by merging the section articles to the main article. The lists of schools would still be separated by sections. And the lists of schools is pretty much everything that is in these section articles. Meters (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[1] Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest

[2] Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03

[3] "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03

[4] "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03

[5] "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03

[6] Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

[7] ttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]