Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

1 September 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 31	September 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Omar Saint Andre

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

I am having trouble finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Mexican footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ghulam

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

WP:BLP of a beauty pageant contestant, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for beauty pageant contestants. The attempted notability claim here, that she won Miss World Canada (but not the international final), would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG — note, for comparison, that most winners listed in the Miss World Canada article are unlinked names, and only a few of them actually have their own standalone biographical articles independently of the list.
But the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as her own self-published website and a photo of her in a stock photo repository and a short promotional blurb on Zimbio, with absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Nomination statement is comprehensive and I have nothing more to add. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

AfDs for this article:

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

This DJ/TV host fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All sources are primary-source official bios or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in other coverage. No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available. (NB: It is listed as a second nomination, but the first nomination's article was likely about a different Jay Knox.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Gonin Musume

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

The only source I found on Google was already in the article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A short search shows there should be a merge and redirect to Otaku no Seiza: An Adventure in the Otaku Galaxy. The group was based on/represented the characters in the game. There are also sources in Japanese, such as an article in Kinema junpō; I don't know if adding something like that is really necessary for a merge, but WP:BEFORE would also indicate searching for Japanese sources in this case. Dekimasuよ! 00:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu Unfortunately, my monolinguism limits my ability to assess sources in Japanese. I don't nominate articles with plenty of non-English sources because of this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'merge and redirect' I agree with the above argument.--ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Langdon

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search under his name and "Anthony Langdon" yielded no sources. I also searched Australian database trove and it only yielded two 1 line mentions of this person. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Racingmanager (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep: National winner, thus pass #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 4 of NMOTORSPORT is not applicable to this case by any stretch of the imagination. Further, this user has since been banned from deletion discussions (ANI decision). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @5225C: But does then their comment count towards the final verdict? They were banned after they made this comment. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

There's some standing consensus that these lists are not encyclopedic because they lack a SELCRIT and so therefore must always be definitionally WP:SYNTH.

The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidential_firsts is well worth a read as it was a massive back and forth that ended in no consensus. Since then, other articles have narrowly ended in deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_prime_ministerial_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_presidential_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_presidential_firsts

I'm of the view that this kind of article can never ever, in any circumstances, be a good article because it will always be a pile of random information.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no policy based decisions for or against keeping this page, but this being the only one kept and the rest deleted reeks of the Americentrism problems on this website. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1ctinus:
If this is kept, it may be because more source material is available

If this is kept, perhaps the other closes should be revisited, in part because some of them had very little participation
_pbp 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have seen book entries and magazine articles organized on this topic. Furthermore, this has been kept before and I am not convinced of the need to abandon that consensus _pbp 14:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There's never going to be 100% agreement on any article, and the editors do a good job of deleting pure trivia. The presidency has evolved over the years and this article shows how. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American writers have listed and will no doubt continue to list presidential achievements (though I am rather dubious about having a section for George Washington: everything he did was a first!). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 26 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. Any relevant "firsts" can be mentioned or described on the page of the president. (And as an aside, there is lots of trivial entries on the list "Washington was the first president to have a First Lady older in age.") --Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles that got deleted had few participates, one of them had no one but the nominator there. Anyway, reliable sources believe its a notable accomplish worth covering to be the first US president to do something, and every item has a reference. Dream Focus 05:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I believe this article has a purpose to cover up unique facts about the presidents of the United States and the main concern to delete this article would be of having too long-processed facts. But this article does a fantastic job of keeping specific and unique facts, that are basic and straightforward. Like for example, James K. Polk being the first president not to have a pet, JQ Adams being the first president to have his photo taken, Woodrow Wilson being the first to have a PhD.HockeyFanNHL (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deletion and Move to the article of each person individually. It is more useful this way Pallikari (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, but the deletes make a more policy-based case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Furqan

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

A mayor with not much media coverage. Doesn't seem notable per WP:NPOL. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Furqan is the mayor of a city with over 800,000 people and there are many Hindi language sources; Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Dainik Bhaskar, Jansatta, and Aaj Tak Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

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

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Laos–Russia relations as is the usual outcome for these non-notable embassy buildings. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that the building might have notability beyond its current function. Per Izvestii︠a︡: Vol. 13. Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodiĭ". 1973. p. 538 at the same address there would have been the Czechoslovak embassy, but so far I haven't been able to decipher the chronology. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so ru.wiki has an article on the building per se, at ru:Особняк А. К. Ферстер — Михельсона as a historical architectural monument. I'd say that as such the notability can be established. Furthermore the article can be fleshed out with a bit of history of the embassy. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need sources, the Russian Wikipedia article is lacking them. It does not establish notability for this article. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The Russian article is lacking sources so hard to argue for notability on the basis of that. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for Laos - Russia relationship Cantab12 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "important" is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. No extant sourcing discussed to warrant keeping in the above comments. Redirection is the preferred alternative to deletion. czar 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nickles

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

Does not pass GNG. All sources are either primary such as election results or his LinkedIn page. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so small and the number of sources are so limited. You probably do not have any relation to the article anyways. There is absolutely no reason to delete this article. AlexIAm1415 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadik Basha

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

Despite playing in 3 top tier matches in Albania, I can't find any evidence of a WP:SPORTBASIC pass. The best that I can find are passing mentions in Panorama 1, Panorama 2 and Argjiroja. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many, many Albanian footballers who would never have been created under the current guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoya Bunri University

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

The only source is a dead link. The article was created when Wikipedia was growing rapidly and had different standards. Private universities must now show evidence of passing WP:NCORP. I searched, albeit in English, for references and failed to find suitable ones. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Japan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Took a bit of digging but I managed to find an archived version of the ref [1], but it's to the university's own website. Otherwise I couldn't find anything else, though the reason I'm not strongly for deletion because all too often I've seen cases where no sources for something were found just because we're limited in our search results, although jawiki doesn't have anything but that source either [2]. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Pratama

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

Stats stub with notability concerns. I can't find anything that would support a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC or any other guideline. Bola is a mere squad listing, Tribun News is a brief quote, and Detik News is another squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SPORTSBASIC, and only trivial mentions in minimal sources. Azarctic (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Bernhard Künzle

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

Per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Strangers_Eyes, creator is globally blocked as "Spam-only account: probable coordinated undisclosed paid editing." Snowman304|talk 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Snowman304|talk 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahadevesvara Siva Temple

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

Long-standing, completely unsourced article. Appears to be more of a bullet list of information rather than an encyclopedic article, nothing establishing notability. The only thing resembling a source that is given is iii) Source of Information: Because of its architectural features and use of cement mortar. to justify a 20th-century dating.

Speedy deletion has been proposed previously, but the article doesn't actually fit any speedy deletion criteria. Just a poor, unsourced article with no evidence of notability for now. Only source I could find was a mention in INTACH Heritage Project Survey and Documentation of Lesser Known Monuments of Bhubaneswar, Part- 1, Orissa, 2006 by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling and seat projections for the 2029 European Parliament election

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

Contested PROD. Way too soon and the sources say absolutely nothing about 2029 projections. Per WP:FUTURE, nothing can be said about th[is election] that is verifiable and not original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Europe. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would not say that it is too soon, considering that we have similar articles (such as Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and various others) that cover opinion polls and projections for future elections. I do not see any issues with the projections, they do indicate that they're regarding the next EP election (see Opinion polling and seat projections for the 2024 European Parliament election projections for example). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel)

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor removed the AfD template. I have reinstated it and warned them both for a misleading edit summary, and for removal of the template. That last means they have now received a double invitation to make a comment here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is becoming tedious now, reinstating the AfD banner, now for the second time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:16, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could anyone with knowledge of the Bengali language please check the sources in the article? GTrang (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GTrang Google Translate is increasingly effective. I was able to see all the (new) sources except one. Each of them speaks to the subject's status as Mayor, and I do not believe that mayors qualify in general for WP:NPOLITICIAN. One also speaks about an affray, but I am not persuaded that this confers notability upon the subject. A gadget of some description prevented my having access to the Jaghonews item in translation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi belt buckle pistol

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nazi belt buckle pistol

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

This page and the item it discusses are basically just rumours. They are not notable and there are no primary sources that prove these guns ever existed. Almost every existing modern source just links back to the one Forgotten Weapons YouTube video about the gun, and the others are totally unsourced and also no better than urban legend websites. There's no proof these were ever produced, that the ones that exist aren't modern replicas, and even if they were there aren't enough reliable sources to prove it. Not the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia. Archimedes157 (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravonaut

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

Little reliable source coverage outside of these sources: [3], [4] TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added those sources into the article, did some other tweaks as well. The standards for inclusion on mainspace have, at least in my opinion, definitely changed since when I first made this article in 2012. I would say keep with the added sources/changes. But I think some of this information can at least be reworked into GameSalad. Soulbust (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wah! Wah! Kya Baat Hai!

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_SAB#Reality/non-scripted_programming -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, political and related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lady

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

There is no extra info here that isn't already present on Renata Sorrah#Meme. I propose that this page be redirected there. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would believe you, it'd be much better if you linked them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mathematics, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ draftified. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Klaue

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

Only one of the listed sources is a secondary source, the rest link to short bios of institutions he worked for or his own writing, so this article does not meet GNG. I've done a search and don't see any evidence that his work is significant enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Page author has requested it to be moved to Draft space to allow more time for them to work on it and try to establish notability, which I have done. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legends League Cricket

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a deleted article following this AfD. Apparently because the wording and WP:REFBOMBS are different, it cannot be a G4 speedy... Non-notable, just as it was a month and a bit ago, with WP:REFBOMBS and no establishment of WP:GNG. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't mean notability is inherited. Coverage within the refbombs is routine. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Oman, Qatar, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black River Formation

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

No effective references. Reason given for revert is neither a policy or a guidelines and duplicates content from in Black River Group. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion should be based on Notability not article quality Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As has been told to me before, sources need not already be in the article to prove notability, heck I've nominated articles for deletion that end up being kept based on sources not in the article. Here are some sources for notability: [5], [6], [7]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the article is not notable. There is another article in much more detail that this article is duplicating, based on your sprurious read of non-policy or even guidelines. Yes that is true, but not when the article is under review. We don't leave the thing blank for the reader to somehow magically divine whether the article is true or not or is even if its encyclopeadic. It is really sloppy practice not to reference it correctly. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion argument is about quality, which is literally listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article can be merged into the Black Rock Group as this is the same stratigraphic unit as it is known in in North America. there is an abundance of published papers that can be found in Google Scholar for "Black Rock River Formation". Paul H. (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Ljubljana

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

Previous attempt at redirect was opposed and previous PROD tag removed. No secondary sources. Promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Anything useful can be covered at India–Slovenia relations. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Slovenia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gelboys

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

Simply fails WP:NBAND, couldn't find any source to establish that or generally WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one source is just a concert listing, not sigcov. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of China, Chongjin

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

Consulates are rarely notable. I'm certainly not seeing how this one is, with lines such as "The consulate expressed "deep condolences" after Kim Jong-il's death in 2011". Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and North Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munish Kumar Raizada

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

No significant coverage, and no actual claim to notability. bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and India. bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Smail

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

Articles for the New York Times makes no mention of the subject, most of the other sources are merely passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed New York Times article, added further sources to add to proof of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV (The Times, BBC Radio 4) AscanioB (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

further mentions from Tatler and The Standard have been included. AscanioB (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Berlin

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

Unreferenced article that merely is a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Bridge

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

Only one source listed is an actual review/has outside commentary and what seems to be independence. I was unable to find anything else. A lot of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which further confuses matters. Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are press-release tier material which per NBOOK do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are promo, paid coverage, wire stories, etc. I started clearing out the worst offenders to see if there was anything hiding in there, but it's just a WP:REFBOMB. If I cut all the not-qualifying coverage there won't be anything left. -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although a lot of sources have been removed from this article since its nomination, a source review or current references would be helpful to see if WP:NBOOK is met as one editor is arguing (in a roundabout way).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis for the fns in this version:

short wire article; looks like paid coverage
not independent (by author of book)
not independent (by author of book)
has a byline, not short, not in an obvious ads-only section; the best source in the article at present, but it's still not... great
not independent (by author of book)
basically a celebrity endorsement? really don't think this is fully independent
no byline, obvious marketing copy
no byline, obvious marketing copy + promo excerpt
not sigcov

-- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, asilvering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)#Books (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard,Liz and asilvering.If voting is the way to retain or remove the articles from Wikipedia,than Wikipedia should not have any guidelines. Than all the articles can be put for voting and the editors will remove the articles. This is a very bad precedent which can spoil the credibility of Wikipedia.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will switch to supporting retention if two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the book can be found. This would establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard. Thanks for your reply. Could you consider some of the below links:

1.https://indianexpress.com/article/parenting/learning/book-offers-9-principles-for-stress-free-parenting-8213322/ 2.https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-offers-nine-principles-to-life 3.https://www.educationworld.in/daajis-book-the-wisdom-bridge-turns-the-spotlight-on-raising-happy-families/ 4.https://indiaeducationdiary.in/new-book-the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-brings-focus-on-family-resilience-raising-happy-children-and-responsible-teenagers/ 5.https://www.frontlist.in/the-wisdom-bridge-nine-principles-to-a-life-that-echoes-in-the-hearts-of-your-loved-ones-by-kamlesh-d-patel 6.https://www.thedispatch.in/the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-is-the-perfect-guide-to-stress-free-parenting-and-raising-resilient-children-and-happy-families/ 7.https://worthfull.in/shop/the-wisdom-bridge/ 8.https://www.anuradhasridharan.com/2023/07/book-review-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji.html 9.https://www.kidsbookcafe.com/review-the-wisdom-bridge/

I request Cunard,Liz and asilvering to consider the above coverage in secondary sources and guide accordingly. We need to work on keeping the neutrality of Wikipedia platform than denouncing a particular subject on voting basis.thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing these sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations is something I keep in mind when reviewing sources from Indian news organizations. As this is not an area where I'm experienced in, I'd like other editors to share their opinions on these sources. Cunard (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur, most of these are the sources I've already analyzed in my earlier comment. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. Thanks for your reply. I have requested maintaining the article based on Wikipedia guidelines for references. I think the article meets the criteria. I have an interest in Wikipedia platform and not working for any other reason.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essense club

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

The article makes no claim of notability. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Kerala. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence. Their "Litmus" events appear to have attracted a decent amount of coverage. Here's what I see: Times of India, The Hindu, Times of India, Times of India, The Hindu, New Indian Express.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Morton Mackay

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

Unable to verify a single fact. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I was planning to update the article to a modern standard but can't find anything. Nothing. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. We can't even consider notability until we have a pass of verifiability. The book exists and its back cover gives some vague details about his life [8] but not exactly matching any particulars in the article. The one working archive footnote shows that someone named "William Mackay" earned a certain honor but that's all we learn, and the name is so common even in combination with the middle name (not given in this footnote) that we have no idea whether it's the same one. See e.g. [9] for another William Morton Mackay with different dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reeves Cini

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The article is currently sourced to a stats page and Facebook, both of which clearly are not acceptable. My own searches yield nothing better than the likes of Match Centre and Times of Malta, which do not provide significant enough coverage for a stand-alone article on Cini. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Zean Leonardi, I wish to add more references but couldn't find any. I feel a little heartbroken about this, and wish for this article to stay up, but honestly I don't know what I can do to add more references. If you could pls edit the page with more references to help. I just want to make the Maltese people more recognizable in Wikipedia. GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:45, 1 September 2024 (CEST)

If you're struggling to find news sources that discuss Cini in significant depth then the likelihood is that they don't exist. Also worth noting that Wikipedia is not a place for making your favourite footballers 'more recognisable'. You should only be writing about footballers that already have plenty of coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also another thing that makes me MORE heartbroken about this situation is that an article like Dexter Xuereb is allowed and mine is NOT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY ARTICLE!?. Just wanted to make footballers more recognizable :( GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:51, 1 September 2024 (CEST)

Feel free to nominate Dexter Xuereb for AfD if you don't find sources for that article. Two differences compared to Cini that I see: 1. Xuereb has made more professional performances, 2. He has made an appearance for the senior national team. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viewquake

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

Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NEO. Sourced to a post on Lesswrong (a blog) and the guy who made up the word. This could maybe be on Wiktionary but I don't know how that project operates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in hip hop music

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

Comparing this to the various List of years in hip hop music articles, most recently 2024 in hip hop music, and given the ubiquity of Hip hop culture around the world, this may well merit an article once the year 2025 actually starts. As it stands as of 1 Sep 2024, this would appear to fall under any or all deletion criteria WP:P&G-s, including but not limited to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. That said, I do not oppose its speedy deletion, given the nature of its 1 Sep 2024 content. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this. Or anything else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed on a lot of the points above. Absolutely not ready to be published in its current state, but oftentimes it's about that time where enough is known/covered that it could be created if someone actually tried. (2025 in heavy metal music is in a barely passable state and I've been putting material together for the rock music equivalent.) Thus probably needs to be sent to a WP:DRAFT in the meantime though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be on the history DELSORT list when it is actually conjecture about future events? It won't be history until 2026. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhoo, delete or draftify until, at a bare minimum, it is January 1 2025 and something of note related to hip hop culture has actually transpired in 2025. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazel Kinouchi

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

Refs are clickbait and profiles. Potentially notable but currently fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Japan, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clear WP:NACTOR pass, so that deletion is not necessary in my view, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a clear pass? Where is the coverage that shows that and confirms WP:V and i'm not talking about clickbait or profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: Do you have three reference per WP:THREE that shows the actor is notable? scope_creep^Talk 14:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3 is an essay. WP:NACTOR, however, is a guideline. She passes easily wih multiple significant roles in notable productions.

As for WP:V, you have for example https://www.pep.ph/news/local/175027/kazel-kinouchi-abot-kamay-na-pangarap-a745-20230806

https://www.cosmo.ph/entertainment/kazel-kinouchi-cosmo-up-close-july-2024-a2534-20240704-lfrm

https://www.theartistree.fm/entertainment/258250/kazel-kinouchi-before-and-after-a-journey-of-transformation/ https://www.spieltimes.com/news/who-is-kazel-kinouchi-actress-linked-to-richard-gutierrez-denies-romance-rumors/ and, most of all, coverage about the productions in which she has played significant roles (including main cast/lead roles).

The torrent of coverage (including in reliable media outlets) about her private life is also a strong indication of notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: As an aside. WP:THREE is consensus policy since the summer when it was agreed during an RFA that is valid method to prove and Afd nomination notable. I wasn't sure about the subject. However, those are good refs. Perhaps you could update the article with them? scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear WP:NACTOR pass and a GNG pass given the level of coverage from reliable sources. DCsansei (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Frame

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

Originally a PROD by User:Fram, which I fully supported. Sources have been added but none of them satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG as all are database sources or passing mentions. The subject is playing in the second tier of New Zealand and the best that I can find on him is Friends of Football. I fail to see how Frame is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guda Endla

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

I couldn't find sources to verify this. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of evidence that this is a recognised settlement and therefore passes WP:GEOLAND. The police stations reports, for instance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I found three Google news articles about recent crimes in the village. I edited the lead. Could someone else please add the articles to this article? If not, please userfy. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NPLACE. There is coverage confirming its existence (e.g. [10][11]) C F A 💬 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Uzac

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage of court visits. No other coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finvasia

AfDs for this article:

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

An article about a finance company. Previous instances were soft-deleted at AfD (January 2022) and deleted at AfD in April 2024; this instance was created by a new editor, rejected at AfC in July, then moved into main space by the article creator. The present article content lists acquisitions and licenses which fall under WP:ORGTRIV; the most substantial references are the interview pieces in Times Now and Cyprus Business News, but these are presenting a company-aspirational view. I don't see sufficient coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Punjab. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:REFBOMB doesn't help matters and this draft doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. A recurring character in a film doesn't sometimes show notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. Trimming of references is a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Eid

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Spitale

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

Fails WP:BLP1E for only being known for winning a poker contest, which is the only content in this article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Leppien

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time, appears to be WP:TOOSOON StewdioMACK (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This player is notable as has played professional rugby union at national provincial level therefore I see no reason for deletion. FinzUp19 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velappaya Mahadevar temple

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

no RS found found based on a google search. Sohom (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martialis (disambiguation)

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

This was moved from Martialis (cognomen) for no good reason. The sole non-cognomen entry is a WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as original expander of article to include Martialis heureka. Martialis is the generic name, and its status as a monotypic taxon does not change the fact that it is a genus. Therefore, WP:PTM does not apply here. 2003 LN 6 05:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the dab page entry to make it more instantly obvious that it's the genus name. PamD 12:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in future please never "move" a page by a cut and paste: use "Move" or WP:RM. Thanks. PamD 12:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdraw or speedy close: a discussion about what the page is called should not be at AfD. PamD

And I have now formatted it as a dab page which has a primary topic. PamD 07:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This DAB is clearly good as the previous page acts like a DAB Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This is a mess. I have just discovered that @2003 LN6: "moved" the previous Roman cognomen page to the dab page by doing a cut and paste move, thus losing the past history (which shows its creation in 2001 by @Clarityfiend:. With the existence of Martialis (ant), the genus, and a bishop I've found too, this should clearly be a dab page but it should not have been created like that. I have restored Martialis (cognomen) to its version before that incorrect edit, but I now suggest:

Withdraw this AfD

Make a formal WP:RM to move that page to the title Martialis (disambiguation), preserving its page history

~~Reinstate the edits I've made which format it as a dab page with a primary topic. PamD 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Or another way would be to add the {{copied}} template to both talk pages, explaining where the cognomen stuff had been copied from - but in any case offering acknowledgement of the history of the page. PamD 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've just done. PamD 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (Mango album)

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

Seems to be original research, doesn't appear to meet GNG, couldn't find sources to bring it up to notability, from my searching. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking Up (1977 film)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ StewdioMACK (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. Couldn't find any reliable secondary coverage of the film to make it notable. StewdioMACK (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. StewdioMACK (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added 3 extensive reviews. More available online and probably not online. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the reviews added to the article, there are also reviews in the Philadelphia Daily News and the Los Angeles Times. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Scott (video game developer)

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

The sources provided are WP:PASSINGMENTION quick google search reveals no info about him entirely which make this article fails WP:NBIO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he is not like giving interviews. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[12][13][14] and magazine covers[15][16], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What target article are you considering if this article was turned into a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is the path chosen, it could be to List of Thai television soap operas.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating by age

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

All unsourced. Also, why do we even have this? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NLIST. At best, the youngest and maybe oldest ever get some attention, but not every single skater. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list would be very helpful to users who are interested in topics related to athletes age. WP:NLIST: “Lists that fulfill WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTPURP-NAV often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.” Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid Afd argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting way to organize this information, but we already have List of Olympic medalists in figure skating and so this list is practically useless. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pinterest

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Websites, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: standard WP:SPLITLIST, see Category:Technology company timelines. No blatantly promotional language visible, nor is the alleged UPE issue discussed on the TP, so that the tag could, or even should, have been removed. Might need some cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a well-articulated Keep argument and two valueless Delete comments that provide no explanations for why this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this sort of cataloguing is not Wikipedia's business, and it appears to be a conflict of interest, i.e. this is actively undesirable as well as totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only needs basic clean up as per WP:SPLITLIST, remember that AfD is NOT Clean Up, this page is clearly notable but in a bad shape. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter how much it's cleaned up, the topic of the timeline isn't notable (even if the company is, but that's a separate article, and notability is not inherited) and is of benefit only to the company concerned. This sort of over-detail is not in Wikipedia's interest; it should not be here, and keeping it is actively dangerous as it encourages other companies to try to use us for free advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  a personally think we should refer this to the guild of copy-editors, and remove some unwanted stuffs and possible make the article in prose not in table form as it sounds like a catalogue. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Promotional material can be removed. The topic meets WP:NLIST ([17][18][19][20]) and is a valid WP:SPLITLIST. No reason to delete. C F A 💬 17:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne T. Smith

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Alabama, and Texas. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation. I do question the deletion rationale as the article creator is a current editor in good standing so while the article might have had some editing to it by paid editors, it wasn't created by a UPE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: AfD is not clean up, Yes, the article is in bad shape but the subject of the article is notable enough as the lead alone is enough explained how he is notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NBASIC. Promotional content can be removed. No reason to delete an article on a notable topic. C F A 💬 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unger Steel Group

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

nonnotable business, tagged since 2015 meaning nobody cares --Altenmann >talk 22:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Lacks significant coverage in English from reliable sources, the notability is unsure. While the German page has a longer article cited more recent sources, I cannot tell the quality of them due to the language. If the German article of it is deleted at last, this one should be deleted. Nihonjinatny (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home idle load

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering/Archive_1#Is Home Idle Load a neologism? PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The concept discussed in the article is distinct from standby power and plug load and doesn't have a clear merge target. The issues regarding paid contributions could be remedied in a rough manner by removing all mentions of specific brands, recommendations, etc., and it isn't so bad that the whole article should be deleted and redone (WP:TNT). The concept exists beyond its uses to promote brands. Recon rabbit 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from more editors. While the page creator might have been a UPE, this article has been edited by many more editors since 2017. Other opinions on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedflation

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

I know Shrinkflation exists, but not every neologism needs its own page, many times pages such as this require much more substantial coverage to show the term is lasting and not simply a product of WP:Recent as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a distinct concept and one that is widely discussed in politics around the world and needs its own page to reflect that discussion. Also, the article when this notice was posted had 48 references - how many references does an article need to show that it is notable?

Update: Keep and move to: Sellers' inflation - this is a more encyclopedic/academic synonym.
The article also has incorporated some of the feedback given here including shifting away from listing examples to two new sections:
1) 'Mechanisms' which outlines the drivers of sellers' inflation according to this theory (information assymetry and monopoly power)
2) 'Proposed remedies' that quickly summarizes the tools proposed to address inflation under this theory (e.g. windfall profit taxes and price caps). Superb Owl (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but severely trim down. The cited sources are reliable and significant, but we don't need so many of them. The article is basically a definition followed by a laundry list of every conceivable example. The concept can be adequately described in a couple of paragraphs. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this content came from price gouging but was rejected for being broader than price gouging which is a legal threshold in many places, whereas greedflation is a spectrum of legal and illegal activity (depending on the place) Superb Owl (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inflation is not illegal. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Superb Owl (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. soibangla (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. Shrinkflation is an example of price gouging and would naturally fit very well there. The Price Gouging article only mentions "Shrinkflation" in passing, currently... a merge would fix that. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article only mentions shrinkflation once in passing Superb Owl (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 'greedflation' of course. It gets hard sometimes, keeping all the neologisms straight. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I now think that a Merge !vote into Price gouging would also make sense, with the content greatly condensed too. I am ok with either a merge or a delete closing. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that Price Gouging is more accurately an example of Greedflation, rather than the other way around. A lot of these sorts of terms are also very contentiously defined on the internet, and there's a substantive lack of authoritative positions on it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. MasterOfGrey(MoG) (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as seen in discussion so far, the relationship between greedflation/sellers' inflation and price gouging is not really clear to me; can't tell from scanning both articles. I'm not comfortable voting until it's clearer. I think it's possible that the articles can have sufficiently different scope to merit separate articles. seefooddiet (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this once. While, numerically, more editors are arguing for a Merge, several editors believe that this subject is distinct from that of the merge target article (and one of those editors said so without offering a bolded "vote"). So, I think the difference of opinion is worth considering for a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different Merge, I am not certain that "Seller's inflation" and so called "Greedflation" are the same thing, but regardless, I am now thinking that the better merge might be on the Inflation article instead of Price gouging. Either way, I still believe that either merge (to Inflation or Price gouging) is an improvement over keeping this hyper-recent neologism as its own article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-section on Inflation would be best. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zean Leonardi

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

fails WP:SPORTCRIT the source provided is a database. The only source that pop up in google news is the this by Times of Malta Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to add more references but couldn't find any. I feel a little heartbroken about this, and wish for this article to stay up, but honestly I don't know what I can do to add more references. If you could pls edit the page with more references to help. I just want to make the Maltese people more recognizable in Wikipedia.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:45, 1 September 2024 (CEST)

If there aren't any more references out there then it's safe to say that Leonardi isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also another thing that makes me MORE heartbroken about this situation is that an article like Dexter Xuereb is allowed and mine is NOT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY ARTICLE!?. Just wanted to make footballers more recognizable :(
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GabrylMT^{(Talk to Gabryl)} 14:52, 1 September 2024 (CEST)
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Livio Mayr

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Found some sources [21] and [22] which are trivial. However [23] appears to be extensive, but I don't think its enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches yielded lots of passing mentions in "match" reports. The Salzburg24 article linked by the nom has a few sentences of coverage, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. The subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the source; it's been added to the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on whether or not the sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources is database or passing mention which fails WP:SPORTCRIT per Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.

and Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Theme

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Sources are announcements of the album or unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the sources are reliable, the pieces are unreliable. I can't rely on a news piece that lacks a byline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source without byline in the article is the New Music Weekly and that's how the website is. I've added more refs by the way. 102.88.68.119 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Refs added. Like Vanderwaal said, the sources are reliable. Also, the album has received multiple reviews from reliable publications per WP:NALBUM. 102.88.68.119 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added make it pass WP:NALBUM Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes passing GNG is enough... But this topic doesn't appear to pass GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Southern Diocese: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, PCN, and an encyclopedic entry in the Encyclopedia Americana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that appears to be significant coverage of the Diocese. Any argument based on precedent is a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, arguments of precedent aren't worth anything on wikipedia because we give absolutely no value to precedent whatsoever... We choose a different approach, consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not false claims to inherent notability. This is particularly the case for a minor, fringe organisation like the Free Church of England. To equate the FCE to the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion is simply ridiculous. The Telegraph article is absolutely not significant coverage of the Southern Diocese specifically. AusLondonder (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are typically treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or the alternative, merge) per Dclemens1971 and Ad Orientem. It’s not a new sect or religion; it’s almost 200 years old. Mainstream apostolic churches are notable. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised by this, Bearian. I haven't nominated the church for deletion. This is about an individual diocese which is not notable itself seperate to the church. AusLondonder (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. A merger is ok. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic of this article does not appear to pass GNG or any of the SNG which it actually does need to do per WP:N. None of the keep arguments made so far appear compliant with existing policy and guideline. Merge doesn't make sense because there is no signficant unique information on the page, there isn't anything to merge. Its a collection of trivia from primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the movement is towards some version of keep or merge, the delete rationale has not, IMHO, actually been rebutted. The argument to retain seems to appeal to a de facto local consensus (or perhaps IAR?) than a specific showing that this subject is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some common sense here and acknowledgement that on the strength of the argument, which is what AfD is about, this should not be kept. AusLondonder (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Northern Diocese and Southern Diocese. The church is notable, but the individual dioceses aren't. Both lists of congregations are short, and if they were given in the parent article rather than being broken out it'd be easier to get an overview of where the church operates. I don't see any need for redirects, as someone searching for "Northern/Southern Diocese" is unlikely to be looking for this church. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free Church of England. Per Adam Sampson, the church is notable, the individual dioceses not. There is simply no need to split out the information about the northern and southern dicocese from the parent article. Anyone interested in the Free Church of England will be better served by having all the information in that article, which is well below the threshold for considering a size split. I note Adam Sampson's concern that a redirect is not needed, and a merge will leave a redirect. I believe, however, there is a small amount of mergeable information, and keeping the edit history is then the right thing to do. Should another primary topic of Southern diocese emerge, the redirect could be overwritten with the new primary topic, but edit history would still be preserved. Thus I believe merge is the most sensible outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Galindo

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

Fails WP:NBASIC, I cannot find any article talking about him alone. The sources uses a datebase and a primary source Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, American football, and United States of America. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: lots of coverage out there (e.g., chron.com, Sports Business Journal, The State). Also [24][25]. C F A 💬 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song (Dove)

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

This fails WP:GNG as it entirely relies on 2 sources which is a primary source and I cannot find any RS sites talking about the opera Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Colorado apartment takeover

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

This feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the most RS I can find is Fox News saying it's a fanciful interpretation of events [26] and the usual non-RS [27] trying to push a certain viewpoint, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete feels like NOTNEWS for now, but I've seen a ton of contradictory reporting on this and suspect we will see more coverage (of the coverage most likely). But for now I think we are at delete. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill news story without secondary coverage Traumnovelle (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. This fails WP:NEVENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anyone willing to take on rewriting a 14 year-old article in Draft space? Because otherwise, Draftification can just mean a CSD G13 in six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr vulpes. It's nice to see you back in AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've updated with multiple sources, removed all the unsourced material and any content that I couldn't find proper sources for. This was a fun clean up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the article since it has been improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is good enough to pass WP:NBIO. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker, in passing, calls this a village, but all I can ever seem to find there is the grain business (now owned by Purdue) which sits next to the tracks as far back as I can see. An 1886 history of the county doesn't mention it, though it mentions various people named Graham. I think this is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our editors who focus on geo AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hard to find information, but this book: [28] talks all about the Graham family of Daviess County and never mentions a "community" named Graham, though I couldn't review every page. Pretty thin gruel for an article, especially since topo maps only show this as a couple of buildings by the railroad tracks, and today it's a grain elevator. Neither of these amounts to a populated place as required by WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BGR Capital & Trade

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

This appears to be a self-promotional article created by the subject, User:BGRCT. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just wanted to mention that while BGRCT did create this article 14 years ago, plenty of other editors have contributed to this article since 2009.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is all I can find [29], but that's about all there is. Sourcing in the article seems routine business coverage, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: cannot find any RS sites talking about it Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious advertising. User BGRCT made 5 edits to create this in 2009, and never edited again. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]