Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

30 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 29	August 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Ulla West

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

Swedish article is also unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Only first hit of google news is about her. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbors (2012 film)

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

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that could support the subject's notability. PROD was contested by an IP user without any reason given. talk Helpful Raccoon 00:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. talk Helpful Raccoon 00:24, August 2024 (UTC)
Delete sources = WP:SELFPUB profile and a court document. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon [[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk] ✎ 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <Helpful Raccoon Helpful Raccoon 00:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. User:Helpful Raccoon (User talk:Helpful Raccoon) 00:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunts

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. It's essentially unreferenced. The only cited "source" (air quotes) is to an obscure unpublished speech. Definitely not usable as a source per WP:Verifiability. 4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original Spanish title was Las cacerías according to an article in the Journal of Romance Studies, under which there appear to be many many hits. This book, entirely about the author, has 93 uses of the title. This newspaper article mentions it, looks like sigcov but idk spanish. Here as well. Lot of other hits - this was the author's only work ever translated into English. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Bellón López

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

Juan Manuel Bellón López is not notable. He is only interesting because his wife is the famous Pia Cramling. The only fact on this page which merits mentioning on Wikipedia is his five-time Spanish Chess Championships, a fact which can also be found on the page of his daughter, Anna Cramling. Every Grandmaster does not deserve their own page for being connected to actually notable grandmasters. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Awards, and Games. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Supervisor of the Sea

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

Delete per WP:PROMO. Article is written like an advertisement or the back of a book jacket. The quotes do not give details on the publications so that they can be verified. 4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article, Emil Draitser. I've found one quite substantial review here [1], but just the one. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emil Draitser, I did a deep dive and the only thing I found that was usable was a single book review. There might be more material if someone is willing to search for it's Russian publication. I don't know Russian or I would try myself. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrow & Other Anomalies

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

Only source is to the publisher's website which lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Spain. C F A 💬 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Ordinary World of Lutz Rathenow

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

Completely unreferenced article on a work of uncertain notability. A redirect to Lutz Rathenow would be a suitable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Theatre, and Germany. C F A 💬 04:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addictive Aversions

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

Completely unreferenced article on a work of uncertain notability. Redirecting to Alfredo de Palchi would be a suitable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Italy. C F A 💬 04:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol: On Photographs of War

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

Created in 2004 as an unreferenced article, as was normal in the early days of wikipedia. The one literary journal that was used wasn't actually a review with a by-lined author but was an advertisement with a short quote by Patricia Spears Jones recommending the book with an amazon link pushing sales. I removed it as it looked like an advertisement. I was not able to find any reviews or independent sources, but there may be something in newspaper archives or journals behind pay walls that I don't have access to. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and History. C F A 💬 03:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That Jones review doesn't appear to be an advertisement, it's from this book which has its full content, so I view it as legitimate. There's also this review - it was reposted by the author of the book, but does appear to be a legitimate review from the magazine Chelsea. I can't check to see if it's in there because JSTOR is being very weird about it, but I got a hit from it when I searched the words in the review so I believe it's a match to the review republished on his site, which shows sigcov. That's two reviews, passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE : A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not yet had a detailed look at this, but it appears to have significant WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues. AFAICS none of the sourcing mentions white nationalism (as opposed to racism). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Taken together these articles on the rebellion are probably notable, but the style and the titling are not appropriate for Wikipedia. With a lot of editing these could be made into a single or a few good articles, but it will take a LOT of editing. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a student of military history, I'm not particularly interested in the politics of the Eureka Rebellion myself. I was only trying to get the ball rolling. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verification and is WP:OR; the entire lede is pure WP:ESSAY. This is pretty typical of the entire piece: "Numerous authors have mentioned the antipathy of the European miners towards the presence of Asiatics on the goldfields, including Russel Ward, who has noted: "The Chinese ... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka"" The quote from Ward demonstrates nothing about the "antipathy of European miners". Nor can I verify the source (unlisted in the bibliography); half the references cannot be verified. Per WP:NEXIST, there's no sources that I can find which speak of "white nationalism" in this context. White Nationalism is distinct from racism or, more specifically to Eureka, Sinophobia. There is definitely a stand alone article on racism and Eureka (although I think it would be better located in an article on the historiography of Eureka), but it is not this one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might just benefit from some copy editing. I don't see why Wikipedia won't let readers take a deep dive into the subject of the Eureka Rebellion as is the case with the series on the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. We're talking about the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not WP:OKFORK, the problem is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing the original research. The use of the Eureka flag and mythology by white nationalists is well known and documented. And I am having difficulty with your assertion that white nationalism is distinct from racism ie that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a racist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that the article is applying a term for a contemporary phenomenon (relatively speaking) to an historical incident. If the article was about how contemporary White Nationalists deploy Eureka mythology, that might be an article (although again I'd see that more for a piece on the historiography of Eureka). However, that's not the content of this article; it is simply a discussion of racism in the context of the Eureka rebellion. I'm happy to change my view if one can show the preponderance of historians discuss the anti-Chinese incidents around the Eureka rebellion as "White Nationalism". Described as racism and xenophobia, yes, sources discuss those terms. However, White Nationalism is a far more recent term (Ngram comparison with racism) more frequently associated with *movements/parties* of the far-right, not *generalised* racism within society. I'm not aware of its general use to describe racism in mid-19th Century Australia. In the Australian context, it is initially associated with the anti-communist far right movements of the 1950s and 1960s and susequentlty applied to neo-Nazi movements (and others) in Australia from the 1970s. It's OR precisely because it's anachronistic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Lamona (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and xenophobia are also recent terms. Nor is it clear that the scope of the article is restricted to the 19th century. In the lead it reads: "The Eureka Flag is often featured on bumper stickers with white nationalist political slogans, and the Australia First Party has incorporated it into their official logo. Many, including Peter Fitzsimons, have criticised such use by 'those who ludicrously brandish it as a symbol of white Australia'." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and xenophobia are not absent from historians' discourse about Eureka, "white nationalism" is. Without a prepondrance of reliable sourcing to show otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate the latter (white nationalism) with the former (racism and xenophobia). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:V is policy - the Fitzsimons quote is among five of the six references in the lede which fail that policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it has a valid reference, then it cannot fail WP:V. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any content worth keeping, per nom the topic does seem to lack notability for a standalone article. Ben Azura (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move content to anti-Chinese racism in Australia. Vacosea (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Body of the article has no content on modern use of the Eureka Rebellion/flag in white nationalist movements in Australia which is the ostensible subject of the article. There may well be other RS on that subject matter but an effort should be made to cover it in that article before forking if it becomes unwieldy. Parts from the intro could be incorporated into political legacy in the main article. Section about colonial attitudes towards the Chinese could be incorporated into Racism in Australia or Asian Australians if not appropriate for the Eureka Rebellion article. Chaste Krassley (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICT, specifically the section WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This article contains nothing but definitions. There is no particular definition or concept that is the subject of the article, even a broad concept. It is original research, citing example usage to justify it's claims about term meaning, which have not been made anywhere else. Apart from dictionary entries, I don't see sources exploring any of the concepts mentioned here or saying anything meaningful about them beyond their definition. What content is there for us to write an article about? Daask (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Glossary of astronomy: while there is use of this term in WP:RS, I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about it. @Praemonitus: Re the merge target: zenith is not much better than this one on the DICDEF side, and to my surprise the glossary does not list nadir. I'd be for merging into the glossary only a very short description, similar to its entry on zenith. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the redirect nadir (astronomy) to the nadir (disambiguation) page and a brief entry on the Glossary of astronomy article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my thought would be to either merge into the zenith article (where it is mentioned), or to add an entry to the Glossary of astronomy article and redirect there. Praemonitus (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the pages that link to Nadir are not using the word in an astronomical sense. Some use it in the medical sense or in the figurative sense. Others, like Hummingbird, use it to mean the physically lowest point of something, e.g. nadir of the dive. A link to Glossary of astronomy from those cases would be baffling. It seems very reasonable to add nadir to Glossary of astronomy, but I think that redirecting Nadir to point there could lead to a net increase in confusion unless we can remove all the non-astronomy links. Deleting might be tidier, or a soft link to wiktionary:nadir might be less confusing. Mgp28 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nadir (disambiguation). From the history this was some form of disambiguation stuff that over the years evolved into a separate, weak page. Do the redirect then repair the disambiguation (and perhaps the links). An hour or two of tedious editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. opinions to Delete, Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and also partially merge; Redirect to Nadir (disambiguation) as described by @Ldm1954: addresses issues raised above. I believe that the content describing the nadir on the page can be moved into the Glossary of astronomy, and that the medicine usage can be moved into Glossary of medicine. That way nothing is lost. The links can be left to be repaired as disambiguation links normally are. No reason to merge into Zenith in my opinion because the only important content is mostly a dictionary definition anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename: Since nadir and zenith are counterparts (in science), explaining one naturally also explains the other. I think it makes sense to keep their scientific explanations together. Similar to Praemonitus' suggestion, we could:
"Zenith": move to "Zenith and nadir", with hatnotes pointing to both z&n disambig pages.
"Nadir": redirect to "Zenith and nadir".
Glossary of astronomy could have a brief entry with a {{main|Zenith and nadir}} section hatnote.
Pages using "nadir" metaphorically should use an inline wiktionary link instead.-Ich (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's either merge or redirect, but consensus is not yet clear as to which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Bratislava

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

This article largely based on a primary source merely confirms it exists. Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
usual, obvious merge to Slovakia–Ukraine relations given that there isn't a claim of notability for the embassy itself, and that most of the article is about relations between the two countries. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Slovakia–Ukraine relations, this doesn't appear to be worthy of a separate article. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete" the sources do not say much about the embassy. Vacosea (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Suh

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not present how the subject is individually notable outside of his group as per WP:BANDMEMBER. Previously nominated last year for same reason and the result of the discussion was to redirect to NCT (group). Article was re-created on August 28 but the subject of the article still doesn't have independent notability. RachelTensions (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, South Korea, and Illinois. C F A 💬 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhajantrilu

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). The longer Idlebrain.com source is the only significant source. Nowrunning and Indiaglitz (only 2 sources here, 1 of which is very short) are both considered unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. Consider a redirect to M. S. Narayana [2].

A search in Telugu [3] yields nothing. Surprisingly, the review doesn't mention character names — are all the characters unnamed? DareshMohan (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. C F A 💬 03:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Litten

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

Not notable on his own. Fails GNG. Perhaps could be merged into a list but, not notable on his own. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Germany. C F A 💬 03:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Vykuntapali

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). The film did not receive significant coverage in production to be deemed notable. The release of the film's logo, its music and the film itself seem routine. Both reviews [4] [5] are deemed not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. Some sources are questionable [6].

There is one Indiaglitz source. Although Indiaglitz is mentioned as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force, if there are many articles on a film during the early 2000s, it should be deemed significant, but in this case, there is only one article.

If this article was a draft, it wouldn't pass Articles for creation. Since the article is older than 90 days, moving to a draft isn't an option without an AfD. DareshMohan (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, and India. C F A 💬 04:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [7]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draško Bogdanović

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

There is only one source (a blog) in the article which discusses the subject. It says he won an award but that is unsourced. I haven't been able to find any sources that discuss him or his work in any meaningful sense. Nothing that suggests he would pass WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, or even general notability. Griboski (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Photography, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, and Canada. C F A 💬 04:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

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

Only very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([8]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious why you picked this season page out of all of them from 1902-03 to 1942-43. Technically there is nothing wrong with the article, it shows a historical table of what was then called an amateur league. However I believe the league did have good coverage in Mexican media. There maybe room for improvement, but in it's current form, I would combined all the league tables into one or maybe two articles. But historically, this league is part of the history of football in Mexico. So... also, how much WP:BEFORE did you do? I guess the coverage would be different in the 1940s due to WW2 and the political situation, so my bet is it's all about the offline sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are irrelevant anyway. It can’t be that significant if it’s getting 19 views per month either. All these seasonal articles should really be redirected to Primera Fuerza or deleted because there is barely anything in them in terms on content, which is why I picked this one because it has less content than the others, as well as barely any coverage. Azarctic (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primera Fuerza - possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Direct predecessor of the current Liga MX, there is a lack of sources but the notability exists. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the article in Spanish has literary sources on the history of Mexican football that seem credible to validate the information. Svartner (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources, and those in the Spanish-language article, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Trammell

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

No evidence of any notability to pass WP:GNG, sources presented are all articles about the same incident, which would likely mark the subject as a WP:1E case. The event's notability itself seems questionable, so I don't see how this could even be a redirect or merge target, and there's clearly not enough coverage of the person who this biography is written about beyond that for there to be an article about him specifically. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Disability, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches with 150 NCAA Division I FCS wins

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

Not seeing any sources suggesting this grouping meets the WP:LISTN as it is not covered by non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

758 Boyz SC

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

Redirect to Sint Maarten Premier League as I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the team. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Navarrete

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

Poorly sourced footballer. I did find this, but I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]