Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

24 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 23	August 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

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

I don’t know what to make of this. WP:NOTADATABASE. Hodgepodge of unsourced statistics. MOS:ACCESS violations that I don’t even know how to begin to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme God (Hinduism)

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

This article, which was whipped into existence just a few months ago, is negated by the very well-sourced and detailed God in Hinduism article we have had up for a long time (and is even specifically covered by other articles like Ishvara and Svayam Bhagavan). The new article also makes a lot of dubious and selectively-sourced claims, such as insinuating that all Hindus are monotheistic, as well as outright declaring that all schools of Hinduism believe in a supreme God (decidedly not true: many well-established and well-sourced articles, including the God in Hinduism article, cover this in detail). I believe the case for deletion is straightforward. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read multiple articles that talk about how the belief in Hinduism id all sects of Hinduism do have the core belief in a singular supreme being. So I don't understand why you would want to delete this article unless specifically in the one you are talking about that you apparently have you specifically mention that although there are other deities in Hinduism they do believe in an ultimate god. It actually comes off very much like you want this article deleted because you are bothered by the idea of all mainstream religions having the belief in a singular ultimate god. Also just a quick example a political figure named Tulsi Gabbard who comes from a Hindu background and attributes her beliefs to hinduism has also said that in the Hindu faith they believe absolutely there is a Singular supreme god above all the other gods. 24.49.133.48 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple other repubatable Organizations that can actually be held accountable for their statements like Khanacademy(Professor Julius Lipner) have also argued it is not actually a polytheistic religion so again unless in the "wikipedia" entry that you are describing as context for deleting this article specifically outlines there is a singular Supreme Deity in hinduism then this article should remain. Also all information in all forms should be free and available to all human beings so that they can make their own decisions. 24.49.133.48 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day

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

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

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

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

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

The Fleeting Ends

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

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

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

Yogacharya Govindan Nair

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and India. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

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

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

Dandenong West Football Club

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

Contested redirect (courtesy @Nyttend:) and N/C a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandenong Football and Netball Club, but still no evidence of independent sourcing leading to notability for this team. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should really be in 'Games and Sports', not 'Organisations'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs)

It's in both Aspirex, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports. Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the proposed Redirect target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target was Southern_Football_Netball_League#Division_4 Aspirex (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [1]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE Re ‘’ List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‘’ Wikipedia articles on individual MPs frequently refer to an individual MPs claim to fame eg being the longest serving MP (Rex Mason), and the parliamentary website itself has a list of “longest serving Members of Parliament” [[ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ]]. There are similar lists for other countries eg List of electoral firsts in Canada and List of electoral firsts in the United Kingdom. Hence I do not see the need for an item by item justification of this or similar lists. Hugo999 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [2] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to delete all "Lists of Firsts?" Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any list (and especially lists of "firsts") should be discussed in reliable sources as a topic AND the criteria must not be indiscriminate. (see this recent discussion). So, this fails NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Fails WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that other "List of electoral firsts in ..." be added to this AfD. I get the trivia argument and think it applies to them all, not just this one. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD is successful I will nominate other similar lists. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The similar lists should be considered together as a group, not one by one, and should include the category Category:Lists of the first women holders of political offices. So are you prepared to resubmit a proposal to delete as a group all the lists you think should be deleted? This is so that people who object to List C being deleted are not told that it has already been discussed for List A and List B without your participation? Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss how to go about deletion of other list articles we can do it on my talk page rather than here. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above the New Zealand Parliament website has a section called

”Longest serving members of Parliament” [ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ] which has sections on Longest serving Members of Parliament – Longest, shortest, oldest, youngest, Maori, Asian, Pacific MPs,
Firsts for women in Parliament including Iriaka Ratana as the first MP to become a mother, Whetu Tirakatene-Sullivan as the first MP to become a mother while Parliament was in session, Jacinda Adern as the first (NZ) Prime Minister to give birth while in office.

Doubtless the Parliamentary staff (Parliamentary Library researchers ) got enquiries from both visitors and other MPs, and wanted a reliable source! Hugo999 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the lists at [3] - this isn't random TRIVIA but is normal statistics of who has served in the legislature, and any cleanup of being discriminate (most of it is) can be performed in editing. NLIST requires sources, this is source-able. SportingFlyer T·C 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deleting are either Trivia or I don’t like it. Objectively, this passes WP:N. There’s an authoritative source, and combine with other sources, constitutes significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only subjective issue is whether this is a valuable list. The other option is a category. A list is better here fir our core readership to see the information in one place, rather than a category of blue links, but it is a matter of opinion. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament is hardly an independent source here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

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

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Sweden, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be deleting all of the nation lists on the Template:Guantanamo Bay Detainees? If not, why these particular ones? (I'm likely supporting deletion, just trying to understand the situation.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any list with only one entry should be a redirect to an article on the individual. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the rest should be added to AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay here as WP:NLIST violations, having fewer than a handful doesn't qualify you for a whole list, if the subject is notable bring it up there and if they're not List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is that way. Break out List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay into its own AfD, with over 200 detainees that's a whole separate issue worth examining and per AlexandraAVX should be discussed separately. Bestagon ⬡ 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Belgium, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably neutral between redirect and deletion, but if you want to redirect I'd think the target would be List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Bestagon ⬡ 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: as redirects are cheep. I can't see any reason for separating out detainees by nationality into separate lists as it is just duplicative. When we start getting down to lists which have just one entry it gets especially redundant and would not meet WP:NLIST. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as all covered already by List of Guantanamo Bay detainees which details nationalities and is sortable. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. My own opinion, weighing all of the arguments presented, is to Redirect All but there is not a clear consensus to do this yet so I'll relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[4] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [5] and [6] and [7] and [8]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [9] + [10]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[11] + [12]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[13] + [14]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MasterofRepulse has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not the blocked editor you accused him of being a sock of. Again, let's keep this out of AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Could only find trivial namedrops in books. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The source genuinely incline the subject sustainably prior to the broader spectrum of historical event took place in Punjab convicting Battle of Rumal and numerously mentioned on various intermediating topics so in this case deletion is unnecessary for sure 14.247.79.217 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC) open proxy-[15][reply]
Delete as per nomination. No significant coverage. NorthSiderRock (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Man or bear

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

Notability; Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, and not every Twitter drama or meme can have its own Wikipedia page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUSTAINED. All the media articles are from within a timespan of a few weeks or months. Nobody's going to remember this meme a year from now. Hell, people barely remember it already. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG clearly isn't a concern here considering how much sourcing is available, and we can't exactly predict whether the meme will remain popular or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to predict much; almost all the sources are from late April to early May. The meme's already long since died. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, with all of its references, makes it abundantly apparent that the subject was a flash-in-the-pan viral meme without any significance beyond how many people heard about it and talked about it for about a month or two. This wasn't a scientific study performed by people looking to answer a question, it was the results of a content farm hunting for clips to post online. Not to mention the article has a good number of glaring issues, from the completely unnecessary "illustration" made from image cutouts to the whole section on "Scientific Validity" focusing on a seemingly relevant statistic rather than any insight into the methodology (which, ironically, is found in a previous section, but still comes from purely journalistic commentary). Kodiak42 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This is not a biography where WP:BIO1E might apply, nor is any of the coverage "routine" (where WP:NOTNEWS might apply). It is clear that the outside world has already "taken notice of it" and it is thus a notable topic. C F A 💬 03:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn't some flash in the pan meme, it's something that's been covered extensively by several reputable publications. Most memes are never notable and don't ever meet GNG, while this subject clearly does. I disagree strongly with Closed Limelike Curve's argument that no one will remember this a year from now given that plenty of coverage talks about this meme's wider context with regards to sexism and everyday culture. [16][17][18] There are easily many more sources out there, many of which are already in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struggle to imagine I'm on an encyclopaedia reading the pabulum in this article, half of it feels like a coatrack too. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Do you have a policy based argument for deletion instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They cited WP:COATRACK, but I don’t see how that essay applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article is unencyclopaedic and I do not see any source that could improve that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic how? It's a studied phenomenon/event. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are studies they are not presented in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a solid consensus. Remember, articles are not assessed on whether or not an individual editors sees their value but whether reliable sources establish that this is a notable subject. I'm sure we all know of articles whose value is doubtful but it's the sources and policies, not our opinions, that matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Sources presented showing the parent topic is notable and this can be turned into an article on that with this as a subsection. This satisfies my notability concerns. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

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

I could not find anything about this dictionary, but it is admittedly in Norwegian and my source searching may have been impaired by that. There are a decent amount of non-sigcov hits for a dictionary which makes me suspect there is something I am unable to find, particularly due to the language thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Norway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why did you nominate it to be deleted instead of asking a Norwegian speaker? Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who would I have asked? This article has sat untouched for twenty years. Afd is the only appreciable way to actually get eyes on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. C F A 💬 03:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Are these all referring to the same dictionary? This article seems to be on the illustrated version. The title is common but I don't think they're all the same work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CFA, your search is unfortunately a bit misguided. Every single one of your sources are undoubtedly about Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB). Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well I'm not going to be of much help then. I wouldn't know where to look for anything else. C F A 💬 14:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way you should be commended for your effort Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's one review for 1993 edition: https://tidsskrift.dk/lexn/article/download/19107/16740 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're halfway there. I'm still confused as to the scope of this page because I can't figure out if it's referring to a series of Riksmål dictionaries or just a 1993 edition. Are there sources for later editions of this same work? Because that would be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 1993 edition Norsk illustrert ordbok was a variant of the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok, which I found significant coverage for. The dictionary constitutes a bridge between bokmål, which is an official written form of Norwegian, and riksmål which is an unofficial written form maintained by a private organization - and was issued to replace the older riksmål dictionary which was going out of style in the 1990s. I would rather write an article about the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok and merge the successors into that one. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to this proposal, seems ideal to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Interesting proposal at the end of this discussion but I'm not sure how that development impacts what should happen with THIS article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cupola (geometry)#Star-cupolae. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed square cupola

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

No sources are mentioned about the crossed square cupola. It is merely an exhibition and the problem of arranging images had already been discussed in WT:WPM. Also, many related articles on those tables, I suppose, does not have any sources. That being said, I think they could possibly be deleted together in here, but sadly this is for one article only. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cupola (geometry) § Star-cupolae. Part of an infinite family of such shapes with no evidence of independent individual notability. If it had occurred to me to initiate deletion proceedings on this I would have tried WP:BLAR first, but apparently that was already tried unsuccessfully ten years ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 24 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.

Thailand women's national under-18 softball team

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Embassy of Denmark, Santiago

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

Fails WP:ORG. No third party coverage. Article simply states what all embassies do. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Denmark, and Chile. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

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

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

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

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

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

KHFD

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DB2 SQL return codes

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

These were created for ease of reference for people using the IBM Db2 software. Per the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy (see WP:NOT), an article listing the error codes for an arbitrary system is unnecessary. There is almost certainly no coverage of the error codes specifically: have done some minimal WP:BEFORE and nothing showed up obviously; and if there is it can be better put into the main article for the product. Should be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow (band)

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

No reliable, secondary sources give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshiftertalk 00:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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

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

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

John Bamlet Smallman

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

A successful but thoroughly nonnotable businessman --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Bully Kennel Club

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

Excessive use of WP:PRIMARY sources, as well as WP:GUNREL sources such as YouTube, Medium, and even blogs and forums, which count as self-published sources. Unable to find much of anything that would satisfy WP:GNG, most search results yield nothing of note for the organization itself; news articles are mostly about the dog breed, with some trivial mentions of the organization in a couple of articles, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV or even crossing the bar of WP:ROUTINE, like this article. Not opposed to redirecting back to the dog breed as opposed to deletion, where it already has several mentions within that page. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Musser

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

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage seems routine for the election at the time, subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Talthiel (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as there appears to have been malformed formatting here. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sharpless

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

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage seems routine for the election at the time, if there is even any coverage at all, subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Talthiel (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as there appears to have been malformed formatting here. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, History, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough to pass WP:Prof or WP:Politician or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The political career does not pass WP:NPOL, clearly; the more interesting question is whether he might pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. But Google Scholar has only 11 hits for him giving a single-digit h-index (unsurprising for a historian), not enough for WP:PROF#C1. He retired as professor emeritus (in this context just meaning retired) apparently without any high-level awards or title of distinction beyond an ordinary full professor, making no case for other criteria of WP:PROF. I found only two books by him: City Growth in the United States, England and Wales, 1820–1861, his dissertation, was reproduced without additional polishing according to the one review I found (JSTOR 44609346). For the other, Wisconsin's 37: The Lives of Those Missing in Action in the Vietnam War (credited to Erin Miller, with John B. Sharpless in smaller type on the cover) I found no reviews at all. So I'm not seeing a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And there's a profile of him on the occasion of his retirement in his local newspaper [19]; I don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Merriman

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

Repeatedly moved from draft by conflicted user, this clearly fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation corrected in regards to record deal not being secured -evidence of such clearly provided in articles . Personal information removed about family, as is appropriate. Denseem (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No point of view of skew was taken on this articl, simply correcting inaccuracy and removing personal information Denseem (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denseem, you don't need to make 5 nearly identical comments saying the same thing. It can discourage participation from other editors and the best way to come to a consensus to have sufficient editor participation in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate comments, leaving only one copy behind. Left guide (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see 1.5 good sources about him - the AL source is substantial; the first Irish Times is brief but is about him. In the rest he's listed as a collaborator with not much about him, or they are interviews. I didn't find anything else about him. NOM seems to be correct that there are COI issues and there appear to have been possible WP:SOCK issues as well. Good to keep an eye on. Lamona (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two Variety articles and Screen magazine are substantial sources in the film business. 77.75.96.206 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those articles are not about him; he is only name-checked there. So those don't count toward notability, even though they can source some information in the article. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I stand by my original prod rationale "there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. The currently cited sources offer nothing beyond passing mentions or interviews, including a few hearsay articles". GSS ^💬 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Magnum

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

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage seems routine for the election at the time, subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Talthiel (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as there appears to have been malformed formatting here. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Radio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Riener

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

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage seems routine for the election at the time, subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Talthiel (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as there appears to have been malformed formatting here. No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]