Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 20	August 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

On the Edge (Andy Duguid album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Germany, and Scotland. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I didn't find any coverage or reviews in reliable sources. I'm not sure if Andy Duguid himself is even notable. toweli (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can someone please enlighten me why articles need to be deleted in the first place? This is a 4KB article with fewer than 40 edits containing a 89KB work of art. Will WP become better-off without it? Speaking of this "notability" principle: media normally ignores less known artists, thus even the best/better albums in terms of music, style, arrangement, etc. may be ignored completely because their artists are not promoted enough. WP contains a ton of info on Calvin Harris whose music is absolutely bland electronic beats with no soul, finesse, nothing and who is going to be completely forgotten 10 years from now. Yet, "notable", right? There are literally hundreds of thousands of article in need of improvement and you're chasing articles to delete? Whoa. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Duguid: found zero evidence of notability. Redirecting to artist is standard if the artist has an article, and if said artist is also non-notable as toweli suggests then it can be challenged in a separate AfD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

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

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

Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva

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

Fails WP:LASTING. I can't find anything really substantial about this murder after the few days of coverage in 2013. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Football, and Brazil. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bit of coverage in a 2023 German book, which is probably sigcov, but that's only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my vote is delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although tabloid, [1], that is lasting! Sources are fine in the article, covers the events, you have multiple different YouTube videos which show lasting like this one [2], there are posts on Facebook and TikTok about this, Twitter [3], etc. Those few bits years later, So ye, Keep for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid doesn't help, the YouTube videos don't help, social media posts definitely do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should never use social media sources per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant incident with fair coverage Ecpiandy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources date back to 2013, when the incident took place. WP:LASTING states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." This murder was not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. And it has definitely been long enough to determine whether or not this event is lasting. Therefore, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Plus, the article fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the only significant coverage of the murder happened while it was still breaking news (5–8 July). The article was also created on 7 July, while much of the news was still coming out about the event, which makes me think that the creation of the article was a little rushed. Govvy's links to social media websites, Youtube, and the tabloid definitely do not help establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Relativity: I never said the links I provided show notability, that's already been established in the article, what I provided shows lasting, is it still being talked about years later, what I showed is yes it is. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how lasting is established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage with third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article might pass the GNG but doesn't pass the SNG. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't even pass the GNG because none of these sources contribute to the GNG because they are all PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability - NOTNEWS. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is not a football context, but rather a brutal/macabre murder that had repercussions in Brazil years ago. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What repercussions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly notable, highly unusual and passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very well-written, and checking through the sources, it does have a fair amount of coverage. Not sufficient grounds for deletion.

Brat Forelli🦊 22:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is well sourced and is a very infamous event. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone here should read WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer as you're assessing the discussion, there's a keep !vote on the Talk Star Mississippi 19:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only article published beyond 2013 that I could find was this one. People are murdered every day, a sudden burst of coverage does not make a case worth a separate article. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Trotskyist Opposition

AfDs for this article:

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

Probably fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No demonstration of meeting GNG. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Workers' Communist Party (Italy). Wellington Bay (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing comrade with the Workers' Communist Party of Italy and have contacts with the ITO, I have made the page for the simple reason being there is no existing page currently, I am being targeted by members seemingly part of the ISA. Jamesation (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Workers' Communist Party (Italy), per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just articles on the WCP website and blogs.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR failing GNG. Nothing sourced = nothing to merge. --Cavarrone 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Merge and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgames

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

Fails WP:N. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company is probably not notable, but e.g. Crisis in the Kremlin was reviewed by igromania.ru. IgelRM (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments only: Firstly, several of the sources are actually the same. Secondly, appearing in a list of “40 under 40” is not the same thing as “one of the 40 most popular women.” Finally, we need to decide whether being a partner in Dentons, by far the largest law firm in the World, creates a legal notability by itself. This discussion might have to go more than a few days. In the meantime, please ping me if you find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more opinions here on closure options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable at this time, agreeing with the reasons that the sources used in the article and an online search of the name do not show significant coverage in independent sources. Another thing she is a member, doesn't look like a partner at Denton's through its acquisition of Hamilton Harrison & Mathews Law Firm; additionally, notability is not inherited, as is the case with her and Dentons Law Firm. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once or twice, at most. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Out the Gate (film), in which he starred. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Jamaica, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani

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

The article attempts to be a WP:SPINOFF from Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg but nothing that is mentioned here cannot be there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, Olympics, Iran, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added content and WP:RS that supports the article. This article is specific to not only an event within Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg, but also the prior tournament, the background and events surrounding the bout including the censorship, as well as reactions. Having all of this information placed within the Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg article is unbefitting and WP:UNDUE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources available are enough to have notability. As with any highly trending event at the Olympics, they should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg. The match is not worthy of a standalone page and the info can be easily be added in the header of [Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg].Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it would be WP:UNDUE to redirect/delete it as the article isn't just about the match, but also includes the prior match, the reactions, aftermath, censorship, etc., and the article is noteworthy with WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK, all of the content can be covered adequately elsewhere. Of the text in the article:

The fact that it's a rematch of a 2020 match is somewhat trivial
Kiani won the silver medal, the latter being the first for an Iranian woman at the Olympics, surpassing Alizadeh's 2016 bronze feat can be mentioned at her article and/or Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics
While Kiani competed for the Iranian team, Alizadeh competed for the Bulgarian team after having represented the Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2016 Summer Olympics where she became the first Iranian female medalist at the Olympics. can be covered in Kiani's article and the relevant "Team X at the Y Summer Olympics" articles.
Alizadeh became Bulgaria's first-ever taekwondo competitor at the Olympics, and won Bulgaria's first medal in Olympic taekwondo can be mentioned at Bulgaria at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
"Aftermath" section can be mentioned in either the event article, this can be added to Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

In summary, none of this content needs a separate spinoff article for one match. And there is no one sensible merge target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brimblecombe

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Waterman

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, nothing in the Getty ULAN, [4], and I don't see notability otherwise. Sources as mentioned are passing mentions or just not helpful. the COI banned editor showing this is PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VG247

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

Doesn't appear to pass notability. The Uncharted review retraction paragraph seems to be only paragraph I suggest merging to Gamer Network. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaguria High School

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

This would be deleted per WP:A7 if schools were eligible. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is WP:SYNTH, as it uses multiple sources that are not specifically about the broad topic of communist regimes to make an original conclusion Crasias (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible and synthy article, starting with the fact that it's really impossible in most cases to precisely apply the term "Community" to a nation state, so delete, but I doubt that this will end differently from the last time. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it remains a relevant article. Also, an article is not supposed to reach an "original conclusion" as that would probably be WP:OR. - Amigao (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Amigao, that is what the nomination is signaling. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, and an argument can be made for re-working lede language and other parts so that it's all properly in WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g., similar to Persecution of Uyghurs in China). However, that's really for the article's talk page and not a deletion discussion. - Amigao (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Lloyd Rains

AfDs for this article:

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

16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least three significant roles in notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (Added a few sources, more sources exist).[reply]
Can you list the films and roles please

And the sources added? Ta Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page, check page history and the link "edits since nomination" on this page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except the nom's concerns have been addressed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously disagrees with your assertion. You stated she had 3 significant roles in notable films. What were they? The Wp:onus is on you to show what they are here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Obviously’? So the page still has no source? OK. I will assume good faith then. As for the rest of your comment, unless you are joking (it’s rather funny), I will assume good faith too: again, just read the page. You need to click on the title of the article on top of this page. I’m not going to copy paste the whole page here. And, by the way, what did you find during your BEFORE? Also, during the 1st AfD, the page was not ’allowed on technical sng pass’ but with a reference to (ANY)BIO (no technical mention of PORNBIO) and with a mention of ’definitely some claims to notability’. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Lloyd Rains also clearly meets the requirements for the notability of actors for another reason: her prolific and noted contributions to the field; and probably passes the threshold for general notability requirements given the amount of ’’multiple independent sources" mentioning her importance in the said field, her roles and performances..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I have spent too much of my volunteer time checking much of the article's supposed references, and they are just a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions and unreliable sources that do not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Curious to know which sources precisely can be deemed "unreliable", except IAFD, which I didn't add myself ~~and that can be removed (feel free);~~ and the source for her role in "This film is all about..." (which I (had) tagged myself as poor, in the hope that an expert or any other user could add a better one, the film being by Damiano) (NB- I just removed both references). "supposed references" is also an interesting choice of words (are they not real? are they fake? Did I make anything up? are there not there?); and how much is "much" of 41 footnotes? 12, 38? As for WP:REFBOMB, well, I did my best to source every statement and role in the partial filmography (more exists) and I don't think (such was not my intent, at least) that any of the references is used in any of the 4 ways mentioned in that essay. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, is a guideline, and would seem the applicable guideline, and it states, "This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (the field of entertainment being cinema/acting) Is it not the case and are the coverage and mention/appraisal of her roles in the reviews of her most notable films, for example, not sufficient to prove it? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bludgeon Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bludgeoning? OK. Was it when I was replying to your comment on my !vote and on your comments to every reply I gave to others, or when I mentioned you didn't bother to check the page and your rationale was inaccurate? Or when I asked what you found in your BEFORE? Or when I replied to Liz's question in her aside?

Or simply when I commented on the 2 !votes? The link you provide most kindly, states:

It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.

There are only 3 !votes here, including mine. I've replied, politely, I think, to point "per nom" was a bit surprising and ask a question to identify potential unreliable sources. I'll stop commenting at all here, but I am not exactly certain I am the one bludgeoning the process here, even though my replies took me more time and work than yours took you, most obviously. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a clear pass of WP:NACTOR, for starring roles in multiple notable films? We even have independent articles for three of the films listed in this article already. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in addition to those three, I'm convinced that Angel on Fire, which we don't have an article for yet, also is a notable film, simply on the basis of the sources already in the article. Abduction of an American Playgirl is, too. And many of these reviews are from decades after the debuts of the original films! These aren't just "notable in their time" films. These are films with real lasting notability. The more I look the more convinced I am that this is an obvious WP:NACTOR pass here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another academic article to the sources here. This is where I'll stop. We've kept articles on WP:NACTOR grounds on much, much less. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The outcome here depends on NACTOR rather than GNG: further consideration of NACTOR would be helpful in determining a clear outcome. At the moment this is leaning keep because the arguments for deletion are countering GNG rather than NACTOR, but I would prefer to wait for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of King Kong amusement park attractions

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

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

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

E. A. Jabbar

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the best I can pull up [5], a blog post from a RS. Sourcing now in the article is of the same quality; the Times of India is a marginal-reliability source per Source Highlighter. With nothing better found, it's not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a well known personality in rationalism in kerala. See his debate itself has covered in national news papers [[6]]He is also a well known author [[7]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Popular in this filed - rationalism in Kerala. Mostly people from this category might not have frequent news appearances like of celebrities. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.213 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Billhardt

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this German footballer. All I came across was non-independent press releases and trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Michigan, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly-sourced too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Swati

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a one-event article. His involvement in ziplines is not relevant. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if not kept, this should redirect to 2023 Battagram cable car incident, where Swati is mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT and the Olympic Games

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

Main article is LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I'm not sure why this page would be needed just for some links, all of which are in the main article. Any additional content can go there as well, this is superfluous. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft if Another Believer wants to continue to expand it. This is nowhere near ready for main space. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be more of a discussion about the scope/title of the 'parent' article. To me, a lot of the content in LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games aren't "issues". I was attempting to create a parent article that didn't present all things LGBT as "issues". In my opinion, at minimum the Success, Visibility and recognition, and Overview of LGBTQ+ Olympics sections could be moved over to LGBT and the Olympic Games. Or, if we're to keep a single page for the intersection of LGBT and the Olympics, then I suggest we rename LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming that article makes more sense than two overlapping articles, certainly more than creating a page of only links in mainspace. This article's title makes even less sense since LGBT is an adjective and shouldn't stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is not the issue, then this discussion is not necessary. If you're willing to withdraw this nomination and propose a rename/move at LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, then I'd be more comfortable redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games. "Issues" is the most irksome bit, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment is kind of, train of thought, so apologies:) I have to say, if I had done it, I would have just incorporated the info on drag into the main article where it fitted - I did raise some concerns at the drag and the Olympic Games talkpage including that drag + Olympics doesn't seem to be defined as a topic, so IDK whether it effectively should exist separately, which is kind of the only missing link of related content at the main article. Of course, whether incorporating the drag examples into the history sections or adding a section, I would agree that this is something that can be done at the main article and not a secondary page that is currently just a collection of links. I would suggest redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games to LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Of course, improving the coverage overall is my (everyone's?) main priority, so if you have ideas for renaming the main article or proposals for logical splits, very happy to hear them. In the links template, the main article is "History and issues", would that (or just 'history' to replace 'issues') work? Kingsif (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif Above, I have proposed closing this discussion (notability is not the issue here) and starting a rename / move discussion re: LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, before redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games. Would this work for you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works. If there's no further participation, I don't think anyone would mind Reywas withdrawing the AfD. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, User:Reywas92, will you please withdraw? This was never necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link-only page and your undoing my redirect of it was never necessary but yes I will close this and re-redirect. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cinemax (India)

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

This subject fails WP:NCORP as a standalone article; sources are all WP:ORGTRIV. Propose to restore a redirect to PVR INOX, which purchased this company. (A merger discussion was inconclusive and editors have contested a subsequent merge and redirect, making an AfD consensus helpful here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we can generally assume that sources which satisfy our notability conditions exist in languages other than english for a significant foreign listed company unless given strong reason to believe otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PVR INOX#CineMAX Company had an unremarkable ten-year history and quietly faded away after the merger. Nate • (chatter) 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources seem to show this is notable enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Law, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The author has written books and articles some of which may be found on: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Alfonso%2Bde%2BCeballos-Escalera%2By%2BGila&crid=24HSSVNYBC0FT&sprefix=alfonso%2Bde%2Bceballos-escalera%2By%2Bgila%2Caps%2C115&ref=nb_sb_noss and https://www.google.com/search?sa=N&sca_esv=d139cd1eb4e89a1c&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWIIv_Al2K0HM9e6rfLi85owlYKwEgw:1723893341467&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Alfonso+de+Ceballos-Escalera+y+Gila%22&ved=2ahUKEwibxv6R8_uHAxWsSkEAHWwMEK8Q9Ah6BAgKEAc&biw=2627&bih=948&dpr=1.31

He acts as the Cronista of Castilla y Leon (Decree 105/1991, May 9 (Official Gazette of Castile and Leon, May 16, 1991) " Art. 16.- The Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon shall report on any matters within his specialty submitted to him by the Junta of Castile and Leon and the Provincial Councils, and shall hold the traditional powers and competences of the former Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile and Leon, contained in the Royal Decree of July 29, 1915, and the Decree of April 13, 1951." There are two schools of thought as to the extent of his powers, in relation to parts of the Royal Decree of 1915, as there were in relation to the validity of the last Cronista of Spain, but in both cases as a practical matter there has been widespread acceptance of acts carried out by the office holder. As may be seen, the Wikipedia accounts would benefit from amplification of the entries by competent people https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronista_Rey_de_Armas

There has throughout the 20th century been a deep split in Spanish society between the conservative and monarchist half and the republican including the leftist half, and though nominally a monarchy there are parts even of the institutions of Spain that are opposed to all manifestations of the right or of monarchical prerogative. The position of cronista is one of the battlegrounds on which this has been fought [sources available]. The subject of this article is distinguished both socially and academically, and the desire to delete or cancel him may owe something to his position as a supporter of the rightist political party Vox. For this reason, in the interest of free debate and given the distinguished career of the subject, which would normally merit inclusion, it is suggested that his entry be amended by inclusion (by a qualified Spanish speaker) of a list of his publications. 2.96.174.234 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see he is the author of multiple books and there is significant coverage of him in the news (see 1 and 2. Not the strongest case for keeping and the article itself is pretty weird but I think it passes. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the press coverage was only for being elected to a council of a relatively small town (Segovia isn't that big). The books also don't appear notable on their own. My before search is pretty barren as well - nothing clearly secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poșta Veche (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

Racers Track Club

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

no independent sources, could not establish notability LR.127 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Jamaica. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, I don't think the nomination statement is true. At the time of nomination there were sources from LetsRun.com, The Guardian, and TrackAlerts, all of which are independent from the subject. Also, the club was heavily featured in the Netflix documentary Sprint (TV series) and related coverage. The bar for WP:GNG is clearly met here. --Habst (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yen Bailey

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

Random congressional candidate. The page cites 2 articles from a local outlet about Bailey declaring her candidacy and doesn't even attempt to show why she's notable. Of all the pages I've ever nominated for deletion, this is probably the most obviously non-notable. The page creator seems to have a personal connection to Bailey, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of Bailey on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 2. Not enough here to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Bkissin (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say in the nomination, but I would support a redirect to that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the outcome, but Florida Politics suggests that the two cited sources, no matter how valuable they might be in other respects, might not technically qualify as Wikipedia:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This candidate is not notable and has not done anything note worthy, random congressional candidates are not given wiki pages unless they are notable in some form or another. NathanBru (talk)

Love Brand & Co.

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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 withdrawn; speedy keep‎.(non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mga Mata ni Anghelita

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

Given its edit history, you'd expect this 70-episode primetime soap to have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. But the only sources in the article are WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs (the link to its YouTube page) or tabloid content that includes WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the series (and is otherwise excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST). My WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else beyond a WP:PRESSRELEASE, and the only reviews I found were on WP:USERGENERATED blogs. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES. I am OK with outright deletion or a redirect to GMA Network, but given the page's history, I believe an AfD consensus will be necessary to make the redirect stick. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) With sufficient sources found and added, withdrawn and speedy keep.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The show ran in 2007. Any WP:GNG may have died of link rot by now. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but a look at the page history shows there was never any sigcov cited in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the oldest page versions, and on the first one I clicked, saw this used as a ref in a June 2007 version of the article. It's dead now, but the Philippine Entertainment Portal generally falls under WP:RS. Other people may find the article on some archive but I'm on a mobile and don't have a working computer to get this done. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070614032744/https://www.pep.ph/news/13214/GMA-7-to-serialize-Mga-Mata-ni-Angelita-of-the-late-Julie-Vega. I wouldn't say it's particularly substantive; seems based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the article refers to a show as if it is not yet a done deal. The last paragraph roughly translates to "If the show is greenlit, it will replace Asian Treasures on its timeslot."

There are no press releases on things that are not set in stone, so this may be not particularly substantive 5-paragraph article based purely on speculation... We all knew the show came to be, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of press releases are issued in advance of TV shows being completed. But even if this is considered sigcov (I'm skeptical), we need to see more for GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Philippines; we don't do weekly press releases on new shows a month before it airs. This is actually more how it is done with some writers writing about speculation if ever the show will even make it to the airwaves before it supposedly premieres (lol).

There maybe other PEP pieces for this show, or from other sources altogether, but I can't be bothered to find those. I won't lose sleep this being deleted, but clearly, there had been borderline SIGCOV sources used in this article, even in its earliest days, and possibly others may be discovered if someone takes a look. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am convinced by Howard the Duck's arguments and find the coverage indicates some notability. The notable cast contributes to it; it had 70 episodes on a major network. (Aside note: It would be nice if users who tag films or television series articles for notability indicated the category of the page so that they could be improved with time by interested users and not only in a rush once they are taken to AfD and appear on their radar. Thank you) A redirect to the network or co-director is totally warranted, so that I am very opposed to the deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more third party references as well into the article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hotwiki. With sufficient sigcov in a few of the independent sources added, I've withdrawn this nomination. Speedy keep Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hannah Clover

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

While I'm honoured that someone was enthusiastic enough to create an article about me, I think it might be a bit premature. I doubt I meet WP:BASIC at this point in time. There was a brief shared interview that was present in an episode of BBC Tech Life. It starts at 20:20. Then there's the newspaper cited in the article. While this piece quotes me, it is not an interview, and appears to have been inspired by this. That's the extent of any secondary sourcing available. I think a redirect makes the most sense for now but I will be alright if consensus comes to a different decision. I mostly just think that a discussion about notability should be had here and I figured that by starting it myself no one would have to worry about offending me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Since you won't be offended, in the absence of other coverage I think that WP:BLP1E applies here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies since there is no strong case for keeping a standalone article. (I get that one could make a case for WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, but I think that the subject's request for redirection supersedes that in the absence of any other evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really requesting deletion per se. Like if people genuinely think ANYBIO applies I don't think the fact that I was the one to start the AfD should be noteworthy, even if I understand why BLPREQUESTDELETE exists. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Clovermoss and Dclemens1971. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep I feel like the global award from the Wikimedia movement meets WP:ANYBIO - although granted other RS are scant Lajmmoore (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Congratulations Clovermoss!! However Wikimedian of the Year is obviously not well-known or significant outside of our own community so Anybio is not met. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. While I understand that some might not see Wikimedian of the Year as a particularly significant award... this is Wikipedia. We're allowed to think of ourselves as significant and important, and even if the coverage here is borderline, since most people who have won the award seem to pass GNG, it's reasonable to have articles on all of them as a set. (Noting that I do know Hannah personally, but she did not ask me to comment here, nor do I think that I have a COI in wanting her to have an article -- I'd make the same argument no matter who won the award.) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO Md Joni Hossain (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This strikes me as being pretty self-evident here. ONEEVENT. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NBIO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (restoring the original redirect to Wikimedian of the Year) per nom: notability is not established by coverage in independent sources and award is insufficiently notable to bypass the requirement for independent coverage. Also as others have said, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can y'all please stop citing that one? She isn't actually requesting deletion here and she clarified as such above. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect This is a WP:BLP1E. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BLP1E, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Even if Wikimedian of the Year is significant enough to qualify for ANYBIO - and I would suggest were we not all Wikipedians we'd all be skeptical that a person of the year from a 180 million USD nonprofit is a well-known/signficant honor or even notable enough to have a list page just showing how we all have a COI and all the problems that come with it when editing abotu Wikipedia - that would just indicate a likely notability. Clovermoss has demonstrated how the sourcing is not sufficient to meet notability standards in actuality; in other words (even if this award is enough for ANYBIO) it might be likely but it still didn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we make this a redirect, she will be the only person listed on Wikimedian of the Year without an article. I suggest we look for further coverage and expand the article. Even if it is connected with Wikipedia, this is an important award and all winners deserve biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale in deletion discussions. A subject must be independently notable and we do not have a notability criteria that states that anybody who has won the award has assumed notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:: Thanks for your useful reaction. I suggested keep as a basis for trying to expand the article. If this is not possible, then I agree we should go back to redirect but I still think we should see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hey no worries, I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your vote, and I respect your intentions. I just like to mention it so that an argument can possibly be refactored to better express one's point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I disagree that WP:ANYBIO is met with this award. I do not believe there's currently enough independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual to justify a standalone article. Frankly, a number of the other articles for past winners should also be redirected, but nobody wants to be the one to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per everyone above. Lack of notability, blp1e, blprequestdelete, and all the rest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, saw this last night and have been mulling it over. You know, Wikipedia is not just another website, it is the world's foremost encyclopedia, the "go to" place for information on and for search engines such as Google, and is a household name simply because almost every household on the planet either uses it or gains from it, a large percentage of them on a daily basis. This ain't beanbag, as Yogi Berra probably said while playing beanbag. Wikipedia has settled into its niche as a major 21st century communication and knowledge tool. There has never been a civilizational collab project such as this except in wartime. Its volunteer editors are not navel-gazing when judging its self-referential articles, but are accurately encyclopedically reporting on an unprecedented and ever-growing cultural tool and educationally-based phenomena. Articles for its Wikipedians and Wikimedians of the Year fit that rational. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of @midnight episodes (2013–14)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of whoever won each episode of a panel game show is not worthy of an encyclopedia. --wooden superman 14:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, Internet, Lists, and United States of America. C F A 💬 16:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with barely any/no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voyageurs Area Council

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enewetak (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, although the band being named after a place makes searching for information about the band more difficult. The references presently being used in the article are non-RS, such as an online review of another band's song, a webstore and MySpace. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USP Digital

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

Non-notable content creation company per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article is obviously UPE, REFBOMB'd almost entirely by press releases. The award from the John Lennon competition looks like it might be notable, but there's no mention of the company in the sources cited. The "International Songwriting Competition" appears to be a paid award, and again no mention of the company. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Borderline speedy A7/G11. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with mostly unreliable sources and some others paid promotions and advertisement. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 500-550 light-years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. If restricted to notable systems, the list will be intrinsically filtered. Useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison. If the list grows large, the article can be split and grouped, or the range refined. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What "contextual comparison" can be made from the coincidental distance to Earth? Listing stars by type (e.g. the Supernova candidates) may be useful, and is a typical subject for research or discussion: listing stars whose only common characteristic is their distance to Earth (without being very close) doesn't seem "useful for sorting and ordering and contextual comparison" at all. Has any other reliable source made lists like this, or are we the first one to find this useful and so on? Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia El Hilali

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

A fringe player with almost no significant career (just less than 10 football first team appearances in total, and without a team since a year). I could not find any significant WP:RS articles about him (just the usual career profile stats and some minor transfer reports), apart from a Gazzetta article from 2016 (when he was still a youth player) where the subject is not really covered in the detail that is required for WP:NOTABILITY. [11] Angelo (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand. It looks like there are some articles from NYT, WSJ, and Forbes about the company or its products. So, I'd say there are reliable secondary sources that are exclusively about the company. But, I agree they are not in-depth, so I could see an argument for deletion on those grounds. Niashervin (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niashervin, I agree there are articles in those publications but the question is, do they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, this Forbes article merely regurgitates this announcement - not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This other Forbes article is from a "contributor" and is not deemed a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability - see WP:FORBES. This in the NYT is a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided through an interview with the CEO and from the company itself accompanied by a test run of the service, it has very little "Independent Content" about the *company* and fails ORGIND. Finally this WSJ article is almost entirely about a different company with the topic company getting a mention-in-passing with information provided by an exec, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasel (catering)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I tagged this as WP:A7. An editor removed the tag with the following edit summary: "Being suspended from operating by the SFA seems significant to me". I don't know how Singapore works, but in the US any restaurant can be sanctioned for health reasons, including a nothing place. Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Andersson (1930s footballer)

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

Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances). This is a disputed redirect from May 2018, due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Andersson which ended in keep in April 2018. The reason for keeping the article then was a guideline that no longer exists, and I don't think our community will keep it for the same reasons today. Note that Swedish football in 1932 and 1933 was a hobby, not a professional game. 15 games is not much of a career either, and the given book source is dubious (cf. Sam Sailor in the old AFD discussion). No information is lost by redirecting, because the same information is found in that list. Geschichte (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco bowdlerization

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Advertising. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tobacco in the United States. While I agree with everything else @Piotrus says above, I don't see the smoking ban article as supporting this topic. The majority of the examples relate to the U.S. (even the "EMI" example is cited to a Capitol records re-release). Oblivy (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I previously declined a speedy deletion nomination under CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) because the new article is distinctly different from the deleted one. However, having investigated further I am convinced that the new version was created by a sockpuppet of the bloced editor NormalguyfromUK, so it qualifies for a G5 deletion. (Incidentally, in the course of my investigation I came to the conclusion that the references in the article are essentially fakes, as almost all of them don't mention the incident at all, and where it is mentioned it is described as a brief and trivial incident, nothing like the claim here of a major diplomatic incident.) JBW (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gramos Incident

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating this article for deletion. There is actually no improvement from last time. The whole article fails verifiability and it is based on original research. None of the English-language sources refer to such an incident. We cannot rely on Cold War claims. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Greece. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jasuben Jayantilaal Joshi Ki Joint Family

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article only contains one ref. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 12:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series. 1 source on the page that is unreliable. Missing significant coverage on the series and not much can be found in search engine on reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda ^talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Urbanavičius

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

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

- Not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valud surname page. --Altenmann >talk 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be valid surname page if it had sourced information about the surname itself, or a list of people with the surname about whom we have information in en.wiki. It fails on both. PamD 07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need sorces, add {cn}, not delete. I easily added a ref after a minute of search. YEs we have info in en-wiki about the people, e.g., [12]. It is normal to have redlinks for persons reasonably notable for future articles. --Altenmann >talk 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbonavičius

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

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

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

Daniel B. Cid

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

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

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

City Airport

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

Completely unsourced and random list of airports that seemed to have been deemed "city".

Should be a disambiguation page at most, and at City airport without capital A as it is not a proper noun Elshad (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that what the article creator was thinking of was a list of airports that are close to the urban center of the area they serve, but I don't know what the standardized term for that is, or if there even is such a standardized term. If this article is kept, it should be renamed as "List of ... airports" with the "..." filled in with an appropriate term. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious original research, this is not a real phrase, terminology, or concept. Yes some cities have centrally located airports, typically older and smaller, that can be distinguished from newer and larger airports outside the city center, but there's no clear definition or inclusion criteria here. Several aren't even commercial airports. The article could be much longer with San Diego International Airport or Boeing Field ([13] is a cool map!), but again, this isn't a real thing. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just OR. It's not in any way a standardised term or used as such. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly original research. Article is built out with no reliable sources or previously published information, merely an editor-created lists. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. It's not notable to know if an airport name contains a specific word in it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Harris

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

Lesser known actor and producer. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, California, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete‎ by Bbb23 as WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Sarswa

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Frost 07:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Frost 07:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough third-party sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was Speedy Deleted under WP:G5. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exercise Indus Shield

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Chatterjee (scholar)

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

Lacks significant coverage. Notability issues. Other than the primary sources cited, nothing reliable found when performed web search. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Some scholarly recognition apparent in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. An academic who has published many monographs with internationally significant scholarly publishers. Many of these will have attracted significant coverage (and, indeed, be notable in their own right), meaning their author meets WP:NAUTHOR. I quickly googled the title of his most recent book and found reviews in Asian Affairs, Current Anthropology, Reviews in History, American Anthropologist, The Caravan, and History. I then stopped looking. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1M1B

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN.

Parameters:

No significance: apart from being a recognized organization by the UN. Lots and lots of organizations are recognized by the UN.

FAILS NORG Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep with a warning to the nominator. The nom made exactly the same arguments for deletion 35 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1M1B and seems to have expected others to do the footwork of making clear deletion rationale, then and now — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Kohoutek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Did he year Brno a year ago? If his career was ongoing, I might have said draftifty. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Beaulne

AfDs for this article:

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

11 years after the last AfD, a search for sources today yielded very little despite claims he gets significant coverage. Nothing in google news and only 1 line mentions in google books. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even looking in Canadian sources, I can only find an obituary in Gnews, then in general Gsearch, this wiki page, gov't websites and social media. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per lack of SIGCOV. There's nothing in the article to suggest notability, and I couldn't find anything in my searches. Yilloslime (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinzona Ladies Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITF Women's Circuit UBS Thurgau

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

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

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

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Morph

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

Concept design for a mobile phone which was never manufacturable (it relied on fantasy tech) and which, in retrospect, had little to no meaningful influence on the industry. Some limited news coverage when it was announced in 2008, but nothing substantial since then. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chandigarh

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

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

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

Kelvin Mullarkey

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

This article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and is based on primary sources. Google books search comes up with 4 hits, but they don't appear to be indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep double national champion per #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this meets WP:SPORTCRIT Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer, This person seems to be a double champion in the second tier of British speedway racing, which I do not believe is comparably significant to something like Super GT or the British Superbike Championship. I have started a discussion at WT:MOTORSPORT about the notability of motorcycle speedway riders. Please also note that WP:NMOTORSPORT is intended more as a guideline for which articles should require a far more thorough WP:BEFORE search rather than an argument in-and-of itself for keeping or deleting an article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How in-depth are your WP:BEFORE searches? There is regular coverage in the British papers, see here. Specifically: Mullarkey back with a bang (Harlow Star, 1986); Mullarkey back at Rye! (Mercury, 1984); and Kevin joins Canterbury (Mercury and Reformer, 1983). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rode in the highest possible speedway league. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Wolk

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

Given this article was recently proposed for deletion twice by User:BarntToust before those were contested by User:Mushy Yank on the basis of this being "not uncontroversial", I figured this ought to be formally discussed. This article was only created back in April and covers an actress who has only been featured in two WP:RECENT films (one released this year) and two recent television series. It fails the WP:GNG because most of the sources are primarily noting the actress was cast in the media mentioned (most of which are a client page and a social media post). The article fails to establish significant independent coverage of this subject herself aside from purely noting her roles and some brief trivia on a college. If anyone is interested in expanding upon the contents, I would suggest moving this to the draftspace (where it should have been started) to allow for further edits to be made to establish potential notability, especially as many of their roles are fairly recent or still upcoming. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: While this may not be particularly relevant to this discussion, I think it is worth noting that this article's subject apparently took issue with the prior deletion proposal (seen here and here), and based on the comments from an obsessed IP here, I think it is suffice to say that there is some bias that exists but ignores Wikipedia policy. I don't think this would have any impact on this outcome here, though including for transparency. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Although I fail to see how Ivy Wolk could track down BarntToust (and thank goodness she has not put any identifying details on her user/talk page), openly threatening to SWAT someone (per above) can legally be put forth to authorities as threatening to do illegal calls to law enforcement is, BAD. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Yoda, I'm not concerned about it at all. the LAPD doesn't need the trouble.

Comment I think if this page were to be deleted, the subject may get riled up more based on the above. Take that for what you will. BarntToust (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the same, although I'm overlooking their social media wining as insignificant. If they or one of their followers do make any threats on this site, a block can easily be issued. Anything beyond this site is out of our hands and quite frankly, none of our concern. I don't usually get involved in social media conflicts anymore, though I did take the liberty of reporting their swatting tweet, though I doubt it would go anywhere. I just find this person's whole shtick to be utter bullshit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up after Jealouse and Bub. Yeah, we don't need drama here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one source that covers Wolk specifically - the Variety article. All other sources only have brief mentions, or don't mention Wolk at all. The fact that half the information in this already short article needs better sources isn't encouraging either. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this definitely isn't a clearly notable person. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m a layperson/ casual wikipedia user and not sure how this works so apologies if this is not the correct place to post/not correctly formatted. I am replying since I don’t want her wikipedia page to be deleted. She is a comedian that regularly engages/reaches mid sized audiences in person/on podcasts/social media. I went to one of her shows and later was happy to see that she has wikipedia page with a bit more information about her and what she does, so I like that this page exists and I think it should continue to exist. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:18C8:4A9A:7D47:B0C3:109E:59E3 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, though I'm questionable that my vote is able to count, per above. Technically, even though I proposed deletion twice, I was not the one who opened this particular discussion. I did inform the nominator about the situation but I don't believe this constitutes a COI or anything similar in the context since Trailblazer101 made the call of his own evaluation. My input is based off of the fact that this subject seems to not have clear, established notability. Declaring this all now per due process. BarntToust (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of the Variety article, this comes up [14], only a brief mention regardless. Likely TOOSOON. I don't think drafting will help, there aren't any sources to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one source offers in-depth coverage from the article. This doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. There needs to be more reliable, secondary sources to write a biography of a living person. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Moral Conundrum

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

Reviewed for NPP, does not pass NBOOK or the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published e-book with no reviews in WP:RS. (I think you could have just PROD'd this one.) -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massoud Massoud

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Yatim

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Bahmani

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Allahbadia

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see anything notable about this individual when it comes to WP:GNG. Yes, Narendra Modi had a banter with him but he had broader interaction with a bunch of individuals during the same period of time and none of those individuals are notable either.

The cited sources are of three types: primary sources, Godi media, and passing mention. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Delhi, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the sources are connected to organizations that promote him should be discounted. desmay (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree and believe the subject passes WP:GNG because he has received significant coverage in a variety of sources, independent of him. I spent 5-10-ish minutes doing a quick search of him and found these, amongst many others: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of your sources:

Hindustan Times is a Godi media who listens to the ruling government's orders when it comes to publishing something or not. I have already mentioned why this particular news event is not significant in my nomination.
India Today takes pride in being Godi media.[15]
Interviews are irrelevant for GNG.
Again, interviews are irrelevant for GNG.
See WP:TOI.
Opinion piece from a Hindu nationalist that has only made a passing mention of Ranveer.
Hindustan Times has been already analyzed above. 1 paragraph article which is only about a quotation from Ranveer is not enough. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ratnahastin - please refer to WP:RSP which can provide some insight into the sources. Indian Express, Yahoo, The Hindu have all written on the subject and are all considered generally reliable (I've included them in my initial post). That alone is should be sufficient... but if we take a closer look at articles from India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times - the policy requests us to "exercise caution" in the sources for claims or establish notability. Well, notability has been clearly established already. A simple google search renders numerous news outlets, independent of the subject, covering the subject for a variety of reasons - namely his podcast/youtube channel.

For articles like those from TOI, as an example, the policy just requests additional consideration when including- I dont believe an article titled, "Jay Shetty and Ranveer Allahbadia come together to talk about the various aspects of self-improvement" should be raising alarms" (unless of course you know something that the world and I dont?)

Again, I spent max 10 minutes and was able to come up with all these sources - not sure what the deal is here, but its evident that the guy if pretty famous and has news outlets covering him, in addition to nearly 9 million subscribers on youtube (i just checked), and a national award.

There's no good that happens in removing the article all together on the basis of whether you agree with his POV on specific topics or not. (Not saying that is your basis, but by the way your reply reads, it seems like it). RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncovering the Litanies (Podcast)

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

Non-notable podcast. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 02:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, is "Spotify for Podcasters" even RS? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero coverage by reliable sources. It's all just non-independent podcasting sites. Cortador (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the show doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [16][17][18][19] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

My-HiME soundtracks

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS DonaldD23 talk to me 01:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Anime and manga, and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches in English and Japanese (for which I searched up the Japanese name of the anime + Japanese word for "soundtrack") brought up nothing Mach61 13:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article doesn't seem to add any value to the encyclopedia and is not sourced. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore women's national under-18 softball team

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

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

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

Germany women's national under-18 softball team

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea women's national softball team

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

Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet WP:NORG or the WP:GNG. The only sources in the article today are primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and North Korea. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I have added two articles including a 2002 Korean Herald article about how the North Korean national women's softball team vastly improved its performance under a coach from Cuba, and the outstanding performance of its pitcher against World No. 2-ranked Japan, as well as an article about its historic 1990 match against South Korea at the Beijing Asian Games. (And those are just the articles in English.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comment seefooddiet (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Festival de Guitarra de Barcelona

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

Marked for notability concerns since Feb 2024. Nothing in google news search, and 1 line mentions in google books search. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan national baseball team

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG for this subject, which has been tagged as lacking any sources since last year. Let'srun (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Baseball, and Uzbekistan. Let'srun (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]