Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 11	July 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Id Tech 2 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Id Tech 2" should just redirect to the topic at Id_Tech#id_Tech_2, and so this dab is not needed anymore. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Id Tech 2 already redirects to Id Tech#id Tech 2, which is all we need. PamD 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an example of WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant. I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Operations Center[edit]

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

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency. But that doesn't exist. We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article. We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose. Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is. Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits[edit]

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FASCIA (database)[edit]

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp×g 🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIV-7[edit]

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

Delete or merge into NSA encryption systems. Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Technology. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord[edit]

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in foreign media [3] and some journals [4], [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshat Ramadani[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China[edit]

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., ~~three~~ ~~four~~ two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[6]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[7] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which all but will be barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow loan[edit]

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

I am just not seeing any basis for notability for a one-time loan of just over (in Dr. Evil-speak) one million dollars. I can imagine this being merged somewhere as a line, but an article seems unsupportable. BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Finance. BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party, where the topic is already discussed. Per nom, there is not enough here to justify its on article. Yilloslime (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party#Dissolution of the PZPR in the event that someone wants to do a full treatment of this topic. This article has been here since 2007 and it looks like it's been a stub the whole time. Some Wikieditors have taken an interest in de-orphaning etc. but no one has done the legwork of getting enough sources to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Polish Wikipedia has a longer article. No BEFORE was done by the nom; mine show this topic is discussed in some Polish sources, try the following Google Books query: "Moskiewska pożyczka" 1990. There are even English-language hits - see query "Moscow loan" 1990. This book in English for example mentions it as a "well known example" of something. It seems to be a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How much BEFORE is necessary to know that a million dollar loan is not by itself notable? The Polish Wikipedia article is longer because it contains an entirely unsourced section. BD2412 T 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just in case anyone wanted to offer any more specific references to establish notability. If not, this looks like a probable Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The coverage in Polish United Workers' Party is sufficient; and I'm not convinced this is a suitable phrase to redirect. I can't speak for Polish coverage, but this article is the best English coverage ... and the loan itself is tangential. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDC Network[edit]

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

I have check this page history and noticed it was a) created by sockpuppet User:Corrugateboard and User:Ghostfishing and b) moved to Mainspace while failed many times on Draft:XDC Network. It is suspicious. Both sockpuppets hard tried to get passed by Draft on Mara and XDC Network but failed. Nice try by the way. To check: Mara (technology company), Draft:Mara (technology company), Draft:XDC Network, XDC Network, Xinfin.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Indiana's Football (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't actually added there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I declined this at AfD some time ago as lacking depth of coverage. There are a bunch more sources in the current article than the abandoned Draft:XDC Network, but they don't seem very independent or are just passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 5 July 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 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Stuartyeates, could you link to any previous AFD for this article subject since you mention this in your opinion? I can't find one related to this article title and it can impact whether or not this discussion can be closed right now. Or did you mean to write "AFC", not "AFD"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant I declined it at AfC not AfD. See: Draft:XDC Network. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 12 July 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.

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All coverage is WP:MILL. Not really anything about the company itself aside from funding announcements and press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGTRIV. The article is also in pretty rough shape and while I don't like deleting stuff for this reason, there simply isn't enough coverage out there to write a better article beyond a short stub. C F A 💬 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage out there, most of it appearing to be press-release-based churnalism. But I think enough of it goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV, for example, these piece in the Fiji Times that involve reporting ([8], [9]), and this piece in FBC News ([10]). There is also some mildly critical coverage that for sure wouldn't be from a press release, see Fiji Times ([11]) and FBC News ([12]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclemens1971 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of articles consists almost entirely of quotes from the organization hence fails WP:ORGIND. The second set does not discuss the organization in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree about what constitutes sufficient depth. I think several paragraphs constituting the whole of a news story on a single organization counts; I would describe the two more critical stories in particular as delivering "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" per WP:CORPDEPTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources support the article well and particulary the sources that include some negative press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng[edit]

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [13] [14] [15] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote because I'm not familiar with how region designations work in Indonesia, but if this were to be deleted, shouldn't Kedaung Kali Angke, Cengkareng Barat and Cengkareng Timur also be deleted because they are unsourced stubs about administrative villages? C F A 💬 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Pax[edit]

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

Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page Six and Daily Star articles, which aren't a RS, are all I can pull up. Lack of sourcing for this individual. The AVN and Xbiz articles are just lists of winners. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A won-an-award-but-independent-rs-coverage-is-nil porn bio. No claim of passing WP:BASIC and insufficient RS support for passing WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant[edit]

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

No doubt, this wedding is getting extensive media coverage. However, imv, the wedding does not qualify as a notable event and I see no lasting historical significance here so fails WP:NEVENT. All information can be adequately covered within articles about Anant Ambani. WP is not a newspaper so newsworthy doesn't equal notable. And just for information, both the groom and the bride aren't even notable on their own. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, neither person getting married is notable, so I'm not sure why getting married is notable. Could be a one liner in the groom's father's article, that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable events where the individuals involved are not notable outside of their involvement in the specific event. Legoktm (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contradiction in the nomination makes the case clear: this wedding is getting extensive media coverage, which makes it notable. Most weddings do not get massive media coverage, and on top of that even prominent Indian weddings don't get coverage in Western media. But this wedding has coverage in NYT, NBC, AP, USA Today, and plenty more. It's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the wedding (CNN) - can you think of any other event that costs hundreds of millions of dollars that wouldn't merit an article?

Policy wise, let's run through the list at WP:NEVENT: Lasting effects: skip; Geographical scope: check, affects most of Indian society, which is wide enough; Depth of coverage: check, as demonstrated above and by cursory Google News searches; Duration of coverage: check, this has been discussed since the wedding festivities started last year; Diversity of sources: check, wide variety of international sources.

So, lasting effects. It's of course hard to tell whether an event today will have "enduring historical significance". The NYT describes the wedding as having "introduced the world to the [India]’s Gilded Age." CNN says, "Attendees dressed the part, streaming past photographers in custom sarees, lehengas and kurtas at an event that may set forthcoming trends in Indian wedding fashion." NBC quoted a wedding planner saying: "I don’t think any wedding in the world or anyone has spent this kind of money in terms of expenses, magnitude, events, entertainment, decor or design."

The best analogy is probably courtesy of The Guardian, which calls the Ambanis the "Windsors of India". Unsurprisingly, you'll find Windsor weddings' articles listed at List of royal weddings. Legoktm (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Vanity Fair: The Ambani Wedding Will Set “Trends for Decades to Come,” According to Fashion Insiders Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily agree ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The wedding has received (and is continuing to receive) a wide range of coverage in global media from reliable sources, several of which are explicitly projecting long-term impact and effects. The delete votes so far misunderstand what makes an event (as separate from an individual) notable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, also Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. Youknow? (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the more I have a great disdain for these type of media hype, I can't help but point out that this event passes GNG. Coverage started way before the wedding. The pre-wedding ceremonies received extensive coverage as well. And it is very likely that this event will be discussed for years to come in mainstream media, which we use as a barometer for notability. X (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is now expanded. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly the 'acting career' does not establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that most of the keep votes in the last nomination thought that being a member of a 'royal family' conferred notability. It does not. Neither does the fact that some publications pander to the vanities of these caterpillars on the commonwealth.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The latest acting role isn't even a named character, hardly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Some of the Keep arguments in the previous AfD were erroneous. "he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne" fails to recognize that the Greek throne is defunct and has been for quite some time. Another argument was "even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page" which is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Being on pages of Tatler and Harper's Bazaar doesn't mean he is notable or else we would have to make everyone who is ever mentioned in those pages a wikipedia as well. He also doesn't have a notable acting career. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The item that would establish notability would be his acting career. There are only three films which I could find him in (the ones listed on his article). In the first, as the article says, he only made "guest appearances". The second film was not notable in its own right. In the third film, he did not have a significant role. Thus the criteria of WP:ENT are not satisfied, and there is nothing else that would establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE check especially step D before nominating this article for deletion. Also, any argument that attacks the viewpoints presented in reliable sources or expresses dislike of the article subject is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has no weight meaning such an argument will be discarded due to having no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article subject has received significant coverage from: South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia, ABC, El Confidencial, Vanity Fair, Paris Match, El Español, El Economista, Diario de Sevilla, El Nacional (Catalonia), Gala, Harper's Bazaar, Tatler, ¡Hola!, Mujer Hoy, Revista Clase, news.com.au

--StellarHalo (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I find royalty egregious is irrelevant; I am not nominating a serving royal who has attracted coverage from any but the gossiperati for deletion. I do not think that you know what the word 'significant' means.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have an axe to grind against a group of people to the point where you hate reliable sources just for covering them mean you should not be editing articles in this topic. From WP:GNG, "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All the rs I provided above address the article subject directly and in detail. Not only that, per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The only meaning of "significant" that is relevant here is the one used by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you seem to refuse to engage with. Also, you clearly do not know what a gossip magazine is. StellarHalo (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Subject has received significant press coverage, regardless of why that coverage was written. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
significant? you are having a laugh.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. StellarHalo provided an adequate display of such coverage in the above conversation. Your sarcasm doesn't do anything for your case, so I'm not sure why you chose to react in that manner. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and I strongly suggest the nominator withdraw. Ignoring the "meet the Greek royals" and similar sources (because notability is not inherited), there are many, many in-depth articles about the subject by independent, reliable sources. StellarHalo lists quite a few and there are lots more. Easily meets WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 00:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is truly insignificant and the fact that some empty-headed people pay him and similar people attention is neither here nor there. And as for withdrawing my nomination....forget it. The man is not notable in any real sense. As per the article, all he has done is be born. See WP:NOTINHERTED. I have a better claim to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating. So you've been written about in Tatler, China Morning Post, Harper's Bazaar, Hola!, Vanity Fair, etc? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG as per the articles cited in the article and the additional articles found by StellarHalo. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply if reliable sources have written about the individual, even if those reliable sources' interest is because of the article subject's family connections. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the reasons listed above. The candidacy appears to be supported only by the candidate's personal opinions and dislikes rather than a solid source-based argument. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT. This could also be disambiguated, if possible. 48 JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 48 JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australians. Agree with NOTDICT. Orange sticker (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term "Aussie" is frequently used and part of Australia culture. Bduke (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where Them Girls At (Megan Thee Stallion song)[edit]

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

This is an album track with no coverage outside of its parent album. A few low chart positions (the New Zealand one not even on the main chart of that country) is not enough to sustain an article. I am nominating this because my redirection of the article was reverted. This should be redirected to Megan (album) as it fails WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and re: point 1, that charting only indicates that a topic may be notable, not that it is. Ss112 19:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album). I agree with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Danderyd municipal election[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Only sources I find in media archives are articles collating all the election results in Stockholm County. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for individual election statistics on municipal level. It is simply not encyclopedic material. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)[edit]

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Verhoeven[edit]

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems to me that this actor/producer does not meet either the general notability guideline or notability guideline on entertainers. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael_Verhoeven#Biography: (father; mentioned there; or to Senta Berger#Personal life (mother; also mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @DanCherek, I actually found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article [[Luca Verhoeven]] does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move or delete it accordingly. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conserveira do Sul[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nootdorp Panthers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby league in the Netherlands where the Nootdorp Panthers are now mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or above Redirect Fails notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby league in the Netherlands per GNG, ATD, and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. AfD has been completely tainted by sockpuppetry and there are no delete votes‎. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazpromavia Flight 9608[edit]

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

Non notable, run of the mill accident and no continued coverage. Also barely any news coverage online. SehbasC (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SehbasC (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating this for deletion within hours of this breaking out seems too ludicrous. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh c'mon, this accident clearly isn't notable. We had an article similar to this a few months ago and it got deleted. And Rosbif73 nomimates everything for deletion every article he sees. 2605:8D80:400:9392:88B5:190D:C2DE:8990 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you downplay a major hull loss with loss of life and make utterly ridiculous comparisons with incidents of less gravity on another talk page is further proof of how ludicrous this IP’s argument already is, which consists of nothing more than WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND and POV pushing as seen by your uncivil comment further down this discussion. Borgenland (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that logic, we should have an article for every plane that consisted with a fatality. Alaska air fuel crash that occured a few months ago occured with only a few deaths aswell and was instantly deleted. 2605:8D80:400:9392:F5B0:2D40:2DEC:EBB8 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~DailyMailUK is literally banned from Wikipedia. A source mentioned by GalaxyBits 2605:8D80:400:9392:F5B0:2D40:2DEC:EBB8 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, please make note of WP:RAPID and since this is a commercial airliner crash with fatalities and a net hull-loss, all adds up to keeping this article per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, what exactly do you mean by "no continued coverage"? As I write this, the accident occurred only hours ago, how is sustained coverage even supposed to be determined here? GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "barely any news coverage online" is factually untrue: [16], [17], [18],[19] and so on. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Those sources are reliable meaning they look like they were made by my dog. 2605:8D80:400:9392:855B:DB8E:9387:1805 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone who wants other sources here is the russian version of this arcticle https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B0_SSJ_100_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9#cite_note-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 July 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.

Emperor Geezy[edit]

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

This fails WP:NCREATIVE, and overall, WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. The award they won is not significant enough to help them pass, if they had 'won' their 'nomination's, that would be a different case, just merely being nominated at NEA isn't significant enough. The noms are unsourced while the piece the award they won is sourced to is an unreliable one from a marginally reliable publication (WP:NGRS). Taking a close look at the sources, they are mostly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and unreliable pieces and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I am skeptical about the notability of G-Worldwide Entertainment itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nominated for a notable award twice in 2015 and 2017.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yawa No Dey End[edit]

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

Just like Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP), this critically fails WP:NSINGLE. No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. In this case, this song isn't notable. Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anvarul Hasan Annu[edit]

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

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Khan (producer) from the same author, this fails WP:GNG as the sources are all press releases and interviews. I'm not too familiar with the Indian press, but the only other sources I can find online for this person seem to be at the same kind of level.

The article creator has declared that they were hired by Celewish to do some paid Wikipedia editing about the company, but they say that this biography was not part of that agreement. This article lists Celewish as the subject's official website, and apparently he is the Chief Operating Officer and co-founder of the company, along with Mohsin Khan. Belbury (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: All I can find are paid press releases and no notable coverage. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at all. I've went through the discussion on author's talk page raised by @Belbury. It seems like author has COI with the subject through this agency called "Celewish" anyway. He only claims that he did not get paid by the agency. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage of him as actor, other than paid sources. Also, the person who created the article is considered to be WP:COI. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Also, the paid editor changing their stance of being paid or not being paid. This page should be deleted for now. Charlie (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference[edit]

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar (2025 film)[edit]

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

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; WP:CRYSTAL Promotional hype is not a source of wisdom for wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 16:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These searches may or may not be more helpful than those above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Salman Khan's film aren't the usually cancelled or shelved, especially in past few years., And I disagree with WP:TOOSOON, as Brad Pitt starrer F1 (film) is set to release in June 2025, while Sikandar is confirmed to release in March 2025. I suggest review on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the review that you suggest. The news sources that I linked suggest that shooting has begun, passing the first part of WP:NFF, but I wont give a bolded opinion because I think that our standards for anything to do with the film world are too lax. I would say that same if I was commenting on the Brad Pitt film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the two articles, F1 has a much more developed production section, with significantly more information, more sources and more than enough to show the production itself is notable, meeting NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: This does not meet WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production itself is notable. A handful of standard publicity pieces and basic information doesn't meet that criteria. Move to draft until the production section is better developed with good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Find some neutral and non-churny sources, please; the 'poster' image (which isn't even a poster) is also out because it was literally ripped off the film's Twitter account. We also can't concievably compare the production track of a large-scale Hollywood action film about auto racing to whatever this is (that we don't have a plot to, mind you). Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The F1 (film) comparison is useful in showing the kind of sourced information that we'd need to meet WP:NFF—details about the production history and distribution. Right now it's primarily announcements about development and pre-production since production only began recently. hinnk (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Fails WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production notablity. Charliehdb (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch[edit]

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g 🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison? Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article.

"Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff(talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizz or gyatt XanderK09 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like "your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP)[edit]

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

The article in question is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC unless scrutinized closely. However, it notably fails to meet WP:NALBUM or any of the applicable subsections due to a lack of sources establishing its notability. The content primarily consists of music releases, alongside interviews and passing mentions, none of which sufficiently establish notability on any grounds.

For reference, you may review archived copies of links from The PGM Club and The Guardian Nigeria here:

[20]
[21]

These archives provide accessible evidence regarding the sources mentioned. I am also very much skeptical about the notability of the musician himself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paigham TV[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2012. No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Islam, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or even to have a good redirect target Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's nothing sig/in-depth as required by WP:GNG. Fails WP:BROADCAST. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Turkish hostage crisis[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, news story briefly covered by local media. Ecrusized (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Israel–Hamas war protests: WP:NOTNEWS but may be shortly mentioned in this article with a greater focus. The content in Israel–Hamas war protests#Turkey may be split to form Israel–Hamas war protests in Turkey. No prejudice to deletion. Aintabli (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability in any way, and we are not a news outlet, although I won’t oppose a very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze News[edit]

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

Non notable organization, clearly failed WP:NCORP, minimum criteria WP:N, nothing found on any platforms such as google, Bing, Yandex etc. Youknow? (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blaze News meets the notability criteria under WP:ORG and WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable sources and plays an important role in providing news in its region. Removing this article would diminish the breadth of knowledge on regional news organizations, particularly those significant in Kerala and India. Jigar1984 (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me How is it passing WP:ORG ? Youknow? (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any evidence it passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 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.

Community Based Approaches to Sustainable Land Use in Rwanda[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article about a specific topic, and reads like it is building a case to demonstrate the importance of a particular approach. A more encyclopedic way to go at it would be to write an article about the general topic itself (Land use in Rwanda) reflecting how it is treated in the sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Rwanda. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Chaotic Enby, Thank you so much for your swift feedback, I really appreciate your feedback. Honestly, I want to learn more, I love research and writing, but I need guidance. Marking my article for deletion is not discouraging me, I need to be mentored because I feel like I am yet to develop confidence in contributing to Wikipedia, but I would love to keep making contributions, and I know I need time to learn

I will conduct research to better understand the differences between essays and encyclopedia articles. I would love to be guided properly to fixing the article instead of deleting it, as I will learn and then modify it to get it right.

I am open to learning and to make contributions

KingVik Planet (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Re Moriori (app)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:N. Ref 1 and 2 are dead (WP:404) and it appears to be taken off the Play Store. Ref 3 reads like an ad ver tize muhnt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Garg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual lacks notability on his own. His entire article centers around his associations with Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar, rather than highlighting any significant achievements or contributions he has made independently. Also, the references are about Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar. Fails WP:ARTIST. Charlie (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Hansius[edit]

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

A non-notable YouTuber. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Looks like a vanity page to me. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 12:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been able to take a closer look at them yet but I found some sources that potentially could be significant: [22] [23] [24] [25] AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've incorporated additional sources and now believe the article subject meets the notability criteria. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestler. She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough in RS to keep the article; this is all I can find [26], rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [27], none turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stay: Viva Van currently works for Ring of Honor & AEW so that should be enough notability for her page to stay, it could also be in the hopes of her someday capturing a ROH TV Women's title or a AEW Women's or AEW TBS title or even a New Japan Women's or New Japan Strong Women's title or Wonder Ring Stardom Women's title while still in the indy's if given enough time or she could even soon or someday sign with WWE, so I think that that should be enough for her page should stay around. Because she also is still a very active indy wrestler today. (She also was trained by Rikishi and probably is apart of the Samoan / Polynesian Heritage / Bloodline. Which could do good if she we're to someday join WWE as well. She was also apart of the ROH TV Women's title tournament, so that should also be enough notability for her page to stay.) 71.65.161.223 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even that, most of the article are just WP:RESULTS, with no focus on her. Most of the article looks like wants to present the wrestler as notable by comparation. "made her debut for Thunder Rosa's Mission Pro Wrestling in May 2021 in a Triple Threat match against Impact Wrestler Masha Slamovich ", "Van was defeated by CMLL Veteran Estrellita." "June 2019, Viva teamed up with WWE wrestler MVP", like namedropping. Also, Reddit is not a valid source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But she has returned to take on Willow Nightingale & Lluvia for the CMLL World Women's Championship it was announced today and she also tried out for WWE in 2020 & in 2022. Hopefully with those two things now added to her page could change something or could make her page stay. 71.65.161.223 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing enough independent and significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The vast majority of the sources are match results, blogs, interviews, or are non-RS. Working for a certain promotion does not grant inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Friday Night, So Friday Tight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. I haven't been able to find any coverage of this EP, secondary or otherwise, and the little content the page contains is completely unreferenced. It didn't chart either. I propose that it be redirected to The Friday Night Boys#Extended plays. SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 09:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found are just lyrics websites or wiki mirrors. I don't see charted singles or any type of reviews for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Friday Night Boys as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I think a redirect would be preferable over outright deletion as this is a viable search term with a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himna kosovskih junaka[edit]

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

Couldn't find much reliable coverage on this topic to justify WP:GNG. The only source in the article doesn't mention the name "Himna kosovskih junaka" or "Hriste Bože", which is another common name, it only mentions the lyrics, quoted by a single writer and in a passing mention. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Christianity, and Serbia. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in Norway[edit]

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

This list article comprehensively fails WP:LISTCRITERIA on the basis the article is a list of inter-wiki links to Norwegian Wikipedia.

Looking at the linked articles on NO:WP, they seem to just consist of a table of shooting ranges with name, municipality and the lat/long (which links to GeoHack).

So what we have is a list of links to pages on another wiki, which would themselves fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY here.

This is fine on no.wp if it meets their GNG. On en.wp it does not.

There's no encyclopaedic content there worth importing to en.wp which would help this page meet WP:GNG. I don't see how this page meets (or could ever meet) notability unless it could be rewritten to cover some unique or special feature of Norwegian shooting ranges that marks them out from ranges anywhere else in the world (if such a feature exists, which it probably doesn't).

I don't think any argument can be made that the no.wp links are just placeholding until equivalent articles can be created on en.wp because I can't see how a page like this would past LISTCRITERIA on en.wp. It's interesting and useful information... but for some sort of geo project. It's not encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles that do nothing but link to articles on other language wikis that would not be approved as an article here. Reywas92^Talk 13:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Suggest that List of shooting ranges in Akershus is nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khoubai[edit]

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

The article does not meet the required standards. There is nothing special about being an award-winning content creator on YouTube! There are hundreds, even thousands like him! Do they all deserve an article? Of course not! The article is purely promotional about the person. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Internet, and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basen Murmu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence of notability. The previous AfD was closed as a soft delete. I searched for reliable, independent sources with significant information but found nothing to establish the subject as notable. GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and Odisha. GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search does not bring any reliable sources, and the sources in the article also does not pass the WP:DEPTH requirement.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree: no evidence of notability. Despite that, I have made a couple of corrections to overcome the absurdies about his age. Athel cb (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the reference which mentions his age. ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's coverage from a newspaper and a television station. That probably adds up to notability. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly any coverage for this fellow. Few reports of his death, but that's not notable. I don't see much we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Cantolla[edit]

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

not meet GNG RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the BAFTA win gets him ANYBIO, but at the very least, merge to Espacio Solo with which he's done a lot of work and where he's mentioned. Star Mississippi 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did an outside search, and there are a lot of sources containing his name, the BAFTA win also makes him pass ANYBIO, He has created notable films too, if this reason is not too plausible, probably Merge will be better.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Baff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ella Baff

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

Nothing that would qualify under the general notability guideline. Lots of problems with inadequate sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability requirements including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:Basic per available sources [28][29][30][31][32][33] Ednabrenze (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of sources, and 3 or 4 of those sources passes the WP:DEPTH requirement, seems pretty notable if you ask me.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A program officer for arts and culture is simply an office job inside the foundation, nothing notable that gets you an article. Sourcing is a mix of PR items and confirmation of appointments to various positions, none of which are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is better known for her work as the executive and artistic director of the Jacob's Pillow dance festival, than for what she did while working at the Mellon Foundation. I am adding in details now. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - I invite you to re-consider the article now that I have made multiple additions and shifted the focus to make it clear that her primary impact is at Jacob's Pillow DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New sources are more about Jacob's Pillow, not about this person. Not really helping prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For others to consider, I think the top three sources about Baff are these (selected because of the extended coverage that spans multiple years):^[1]^[2]^[3]. I further think that she meets WP:CREATIVE for her work with Jacob's Pillow (criteria #4, which in part says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." That being said. I look forward to hearing what others think. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

Tourism in Antalya[edit]

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

I've already copied the introduction into the Antalya article. This is a short article that doesn't have much scope for expansion as a stand alone article. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many book references are available on this topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, I'm sure tourists travel there, but coverage isn't strictly about that. [34] or [35] are vaguely about the concept. We'd need OR to bring the article together, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore–Spain relations[edit]

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

This article is based on primary sources, including mostly from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Singapore, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local coverage, such as what has been added here thus far, is usually not permitted for organizations per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think we need to hear from more editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, India, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Doshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Charlie (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, Gujarat, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recent AFD resulted in deletion. Article was then re-created, but still isn't notable. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was deleted literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Familial relationships of Errol Musk[edit]

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

Errol Musk is not in any way notable independent of his relation to Elon Musk. He ran for public office, ~~but was never elected,~~ but was only elected once to a local city council, he was an engineer, but didn't do anything of note. There is nothing about him is notable other than that he was the father of Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Ah I missed that, but that was a local city council. None of the people in my city council have wikipedia pages. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be great if there is a comparison on how vocal he was compared to the famous Helen Suzman. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Ridiculous to have an article about someone's "familial relationships" without giving him his own article. Astaire (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Ergzay (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Engineering, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)

The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got 4 different BLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.

An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.

I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this feedback.

I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what people "deserve". Please read WP:RGW. Astaire (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?

Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including that content with that justification is a WP:OR issue, unless reliable sources explicitly note the contradiction themselves. Astaire (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Plenty of notable source material for an article about the man more so than his "relations", especially since Musk Family got effectively yeeted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaine Kennedy[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [36] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [37]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The author of the article is another UK academic in the same field. BhamBoi (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [38], and [39]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDis_tortion 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof: was a full Professor at a major university, and has lots of citations. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Schoof[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. Firstly, notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically notable just because of who his brother is -- but in terms of establishing his own standalone notability, the only claim even being attempted here is that he's been a chair of political committees, with absolutely no indication that he's ever held a noteworthy political office, and there's only one footnote being cited to support the article, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
As I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Dutch politics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in the area can expand the article with a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here as of right now is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from needing more than just being somebody's brother. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Netherlands. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find significant coverage of the subject. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schoof was the mayor of FOUR different Dutch municipalities, among these Alphen aan den Rijn, a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The fact that his brother just became prime minister of the Netherlands SHOULD NOT be held against him. Family members of famous people can also be notable! gidonb (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors aren't automatically notable just for being mayors either, not even in cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. The notability bar for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact — specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth — and just throwing the word "mayor" around is not dropping any mics on anything if that type of substantive content isn't present in the article to legitimize it. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one says it's automatic yet Dutch mayors of contemporary municipalities (+historic Frisian municipalities), all the equivalent of cities, are usually kept. It has to do with the differences between mayors in the Netherlands and in most other countries. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about Gidonb's claim, but as it stands it's a BLP with one source, and will need to be deleted or draftifyed if better sources are not found. The pages on him in other languages are not helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not measured by references. gidonb (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one source didn't really discuss him at all, and one source is required by BLP. I see you've added another source. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. gidonb (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's some articles on him, but they seem routine job descriptions and I don't really see him passing WP:GNG after a before search. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time to reference this right now. Since Schoof also has a literal meaning and mayors are/were commonly mentioned without first names, it's complex. Someone else can reference and recreate this later. Another problem is that 1997–2008 roughly corresponds with the website to archive lull. gidonb (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this consensus is ultimately delete, we could draftify it for you? SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SportingFlyer. I am really busy. Nico Schoof is notable yet probably the article was created by someone who thought it was cool that his brother had become prime minister. I just invested tons of time in saving Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. It's all too time consuming. It's way too easy to nominate and way too difficult to save articles. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Schoof served as mayor in four places, including Alphen aan den Rijn. Yet, the current references do not show his notability beyond standard coverage. To address this, we need to revise the article and focus on adding more robust sources and details. These extra details could help to showcase Schoof's impact and justify a standalone article. Draftification is crucial as it allows us to develop the article further, ensuring it meets WP:BLP.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per author's comments. This article is not ready for mainspace at the moment, it would need more sourcing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[:2-1] Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[:1-2] Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[3] "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

[1]

[2]

[3]