Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELT)
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Draft:Aditto Ahsan
ALBANA (artist)
Draft:Ali Chmayssani
Draft:Michael A. White
Neijin
Neijin (internal strength)

Articles[edit]

< May 13 May 15 >

Purge server cache

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist)[edit]

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Clearfrienda 💬 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

John Hoberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Roads[edit]

Independent Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. A Google search only brings back this page, an IMDB page, and a Rotten Tomatoes page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors[edit]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G4, just nearly unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) and re-created because this is a very important page to a large community of 30k people rather than because they believe the close was wrong. Jmajeremy raises a potential solution, but it does not appear this has happened and it remains just a directory. Star Mississippi 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think listing this article for deletion so soon is WP:ZEALOUS. Give the author(s) a chance to continue writing and editing. Looking at the previous AfD, the rationale several people gave was that a simple list of all IMAX venues would be long and not very useful. For example, one user wrote "Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it", which is true, but this article doesn't seek to simply list all accredited IMAX theatres--that list is already available on IMAX's website--this article has the goal of only summarizing venues which have a particular type of projection equipment. It is very similar to articles like List of films released in IMAX and List of drive-in theaters, so if those articles aren't simple directories, I don't see why this article would be considered one. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason for keeping something, but taking List of drive-in theaters, it's a list of notable (i.e. having there own page) drive in movie theatres. This means it is a navigation list and passes WP:LISTPURP. It's also extensively sourced to independent secondary sources that themselves list "drive in theatres" thus it complies with WP:NLIST. This article does neither of these things. If you want to restrict this to only notable IMAX venues (like the drive-in article) you'd be left with 13 items (by my count of Category:IMAX venues) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The venues included in this list are in fact notable. Many of them do have dedicated articles even if they haven't yet been linked properly, and many of the other theatres on this list are notable enough to have their own articles, if someone was inclined to write them. Out of the 1700 IMAX theatres that exist, we're talking about only a few dozen around the world which would meet the criteria to be included on this list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. Rbvamm (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Which is currently covered in the IMAX article quite adequately. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. I'm not really sure what your trying to say here, but we do in fact have articles on a variety of aspect ratios. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. Then there's no way this could be notable even beside its directory characteristics. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP the full list User:Jmajeremy it is a very useful resource there is NO reason to delete this Aselwyn1 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article and the previous article are a compilation of information that amounts to more than a simple “phone book” repetition of theater venues. There is technical information concerning the screen aspect ratio's, screen sizes, and specific projection types that must be sourced individually. IMAX's official list has only basic data concerning venues that this list sought to add to, not merely repeat. This article needs significantly better sourcing and formatting improvements, but in my interpretation, I believe it's a useful concept and not a mere repetitive directory. FriendlyToaster (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The users who voted on the previous article being deleted clearly don’t know/understand IMAX formats. I don’t see how it was WP:NOTDIR. It was not a directory. It was a listing of IMAX venues with their technical information. Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website). I can perhaps understand the deletion because there are too many regular IMAX xenon theatres to list and that makes it more of a directory. But a more specialised list of Laser and 70mm venues is not very long and should be kept. Mrblue6 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet) and it was WP:NOTDIR. Folks who want to keep it are trying to save this valuable information. Give them a chance to update this article and make it relevant. There is an effort to potentially create this information on GITHUB. Maybe that can be a better home for the information but even if that happens, for the general public (not just a niche community) looking for information on 15/70 IMAX screens, it just won’t be as convenient as this. Reportersteven (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have been around for a very long time, but in that time the purpose of Wikipedia ha changed dramatically. That's not remotely what the project is for, which renders this not a valid keep !vote. Star Mississippi 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PA I am disappointed to see a long-time WP editor using ad hominem to dismiss someone's viewpoint 143.58.201.143 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is what Star Mississippi an ad hominem? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouncing someone's vote as invalid on the basis of the editors lack of familiarity with how the purpose of Wikipedia has allegedly evolved since they were last active, is no better than dismissing an argument because an editor is new to Wikipedia. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a recreation of a deleted article. If you have a problem with a close the place to go is WP:DR. A listing of IMAX venues with their technical information falls under the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it more clearly falls under the letter of WP:NOTDATABASE. And this not available anywhere else is all the more reason to delete, as the job of Wikipedia is to follow the sources, not engage in original research or provide Free web hosting for your "WP:USEFUL" list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a list of IMAX venues with their technical information, it's a specific list of notable IMAX locations due to their rare projection technology. The information is all available elsewhere, but nowhere else in a single cohesive list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are two main purposes for lists: to provide internal navigation for Wikipedia and to have lists for groupings that have been adequately discussed in reliable sources (e.g., List of drive-in theatres fits the first one, as it serves to link to Wikipedia pages; List of films released in IMAX fits the second, having been a common topic both the news and in certain filmmaking scholarly circles). This fits neither and as such, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTPURPOSE. Also, fun fact. If you want to keep a list because the information is not anywhere else, then you basically just admitted that the list is not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to a few of these points: WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists 6 items articles are not. This list is clearly not 2-5, and doesn't fit the definition of 1. It is not trying to be a simple list of every theater out there, rather a specific subset of the theaters with the unique specifications of each venue cataloged. This provides context to the main IMAX article and valuable information to people interested in these theaters. The specs for 70mm and Laser showings was a topic that was widely discussed amongst theater goers and the media with recent releases such as Oppenheimer and Dune. A list is an ideal format for cataloging and documenting a small number of unique theaters like this. Many of which do actually have dedicated articles or deserve an article, which fits the points in WP:LISTPURPOSE to provide valuable information and be an aggregate to more articles. This article and its predecessor certainly do/did not provide adequate wiki linking or sourcing. This point is very accurate, but is not what it's being deleted for. On the last point, the assertion that the information is not available elsewhere and therefore is not notable is not accurate. This article compiles publicly available data from disparate sources, particularly technical specifications not listed within IMAX's own theater catalog. Specs that most theaters do discuss in press releases and local news. This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable and demonstrates value, while also not being WP:NOR as it's all basic information that's already been published. It's more than a simple repeat directory and does have notability. These articles represent efforts by the community to document and catalog their niche for others to learn about and share, and I still fail to see how it has broken rules in a way to merit deletion before improvement. FriendlyToaster (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the five key principles of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia[1], part of Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia states that "[they provide] summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline."[2] My interpretation of this article is a summary of knowledge about IMAX theatres that has been gathered from many different sources meaning that it should be part of an encyclopedia, although admittedly the article needs citing and formatting improvements it should still be part of Wikipedia. additionally this article is similar to other articles such as list of james bond films[3] and if this article isn't considered against Wikipedia guidelines then I don't see why "list of imax venues with 15/70 and laser projectors" is either.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term WP:Encyclopedia, like many terms used on Wikipedia, is a term of art, with a meaning that isn't necessarily exactly the definition you would find in a dictionary. The actual pillar (found at WP:5P1) says in part Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [...]. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform, [...] an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. This is why people keep linking to WP:NOT, which is the policy which explains all the types of knowledge we don't include. We explicitly recommend that people take such knowledge to other outlets (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with that policy, and I genuinely don't think it applies to this article. I would love to know which of the 6 categories described at WP:NOTDIR people think that this article falls under, because I have re-read it several times and none of them strike me as even remotely describing this article. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, but this was created almost immediately when the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) was due to close. The editor who created this new article had a history of just three edits at the time. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the preceding AfD outcome which had closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly makes this a clear fail? I would say it clearly is an appropriate topic for a list based on WP:SALAT. Yes the original author is fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think they're trying to circumvent anything, this is a new list with a more narrowly defined WP:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:USEFUL is not a suitable keep argument here. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NLIST. There is no sourcing discussing these as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold this is genuinely encyclopaedic content that gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere. These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media whenever a new premium format movie is released, and acclaimed directors such as Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve have told the best way to experience their work is to find one of these premium venues and watch it there. I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement. There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that WP:BOLD applies here. As you look above different views have already been established.
These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media
It is helpful if you provide sources when you make statements such as this.
I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement.
The article is being considering inline with notability not film enthusiasm.
There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal.
Strange things can happen but it is not a reason to engage in whataboutism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per JmaJeremy and Travelling nomad 1. This article, as other editors have also mentioned, was created based on a suggestion given for the deletion of "List of IMAX venues," which was to make an article that focuses on a specific subsection of IMAX theatres, as opposed to listing every single one. And this article has done that, being created for specifically 15/70 or laser projection IMAX theatres. An argument for this article's deletion is that there are not enough credible sources. This can be fixed by giving the editors of this article more time to add information and citations. This article is not a directory, as it isn't just a list of venues, rather a collection of tables which provide additional information, such as types of film projectors, screen dimensions, sound system type, aspect ratio, etc. Mjks28 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we are just supposed to trust, that this article which was recreated to get around the consensus at the last WP:AFD (as the creator has said at reddit), meats WP:NLIST because there WP:MUSTBESOURCES and we just need to give editors (who don't seem to see a problem with having "information not found anywhere else on the net") a little more time. Now is the time for people wanting to keep the article to find multiple in depth sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NLIST. Also I don't see how your solution to being a directory is to add more unverifiable/synthy information. Presumably we would could therefore have List of Plumbers in New York as long as we added a bunch of other WP:INDISCRIMINATE information in a table format. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us were not aware of the previous deletion request, but now see how valuable this list is once it was missing. Consider List of airports in Australia, that is far more of a directory than this page is. In fact, this page is based on collecting secondary sources which is the very purpose of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the airports are independently notable, thus it serves as a navigation system for Wikipedia. This is no such type of list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much disagree. Many of these venues are notable, even the flagship IMAXes in their countries or cities, with their own articles and histories and details. For those, it does serve as a navigation system, and prevents orphaned articles. Criticalus (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the articles are about the museums or independently notable theatres that happen to have IMAX. The fact that these places include the format is a non-defining trait for all of these. Most of these pages do not even mention the fact that they have IMAX screens. Very much a bad argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED is the key policy here. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are currently finding and citing sources for the venues, I'm just saying that adding sources cannot be done instantly, and that editors will require more time to properly add multiple sources for each venue. Mjks28 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very useful list for finding "real" Imaxes, which the official page does not distinguish, and as such based on a compiliation of secondary sources, exactly the purview of wikipedia. It is thus not a directory, but a researched and very handy list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no harm in leaving up a page so many of us find useful. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. We need to see WP:N, and so far that has not been provided as it pertains to the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, here is a secondary source [2] that talks about how the specific aspect ratio of some imaxes are the "real thing" and some are not. This information is collected in the same way as any other article of wikipedia. It follows from this one link I provided that there is value in creating a list (not found elsewhere) of these specific types of imaxes. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I applaud the desire to keep Wikipedia within scope, and trim the number of lists generally. However, this particular list is extremely useful to the Wiki in a few ways. It uses secondary sourcing to confirm and augment data that is then used in infoboxes across the mainspace. It also provides vital links connecting various IMAX articles that would otherwise be orphaned. Notability has already been established - IMAX is the most popular large-format theatrical experience globally, it receives significant coverage across many reliable sources, including quality third-party sources like LF Examiner which were dedicated to its coverage, and this list is the connective tissue that makes the many articles surrounding IMAX navigable. Criticalus (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue here is these aren't secondary sources. About us, and theatre listings are primary and just confirm they exist, which isn't helpful for notability. Star Mississippi 13:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rewrote the lead paragraph to provide sourced inclusion criteria from a secondary source as someone above mentioned was needed to ensure the list was not a directory. I hope this is what was meant by the comment. This can of course be improved with further sourcing and better wording but I think this should meet the requirement. Mattximus (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The single source given above would be a good source for the IMAX article (or one on True IMAX), but this is not those articles, and still fails WP:NOTDIR as it still a list of (mostly) non-notable locations, based if they happen to have bought a particular companies projector system. If you want to make an article on 'true IMAX' starting with those sources instead of trying to graft it on to an list that fails WP:NOT more than it does WP:N (although I also think it fails WP:LISTN as well). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting proposition, would you consider a new page called True Imax, which contains this list within it, no longer a directory? I strongly disagree that it is just a directory as the rarity of these projectors is notable itself. But this may be an interesting compromise. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    could we even rename this page and add the extra information while retaining the list? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would still be a directory (of mostly non-notable locations that happen to have a particular service) whether the title had the word list in it. Just to make it clear when we use the term WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia we are (almost always) referring to WP:GNG, not what individual editor think is WP:IMPORTANT or rare. My suggestion was to take these sources which discuss the topic as a whole, and the information already in IMAX, and create a prose article on it based on those sources (in a way that complies with WP:N and WP:PROPORTION). It may then be appropriate to include a list of notable venues as example (that is to say, have articles, or are very likely have articles) but I highly doubt most of these would make the cut. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE apply to this article, as well as the group not meeting WP:LISTN. The article is just a list of mostly non-notable theaters and they are not discussed together as a group. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not great arguments, and canvassing on Reddit doesn't look great either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST and there are plenty of other places available to hold random lists. Plenty of places have an IMAX theater, it's not some grand revelation whether they do or not. Also seems like a way to just try and get around the previous deletion of List of IMAX theaters (it's even a redirect to the page). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    these theatres are notable in themselves for having this rare projection equipment out of the hundreds of thousands of theatres and thousands of IMAX theatres only a small number have this rare and advanced equipment, equipment that has been lengthily discussed in the media and among cinema-goers in recent months with the release of Oppenheimer and Dune part 2. Does that not make these cinemas notable? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth trying to create articles on more of the entries in this list. Garuda3 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do really think most of these venues would meet WP:N. A reminder that notability is NOTINHERITED on the basis that something provides a rare services but on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fancruft meets Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory, this list needs to pass NLIST, nothing found in the article or in BEFORE that show this has been discussed as a group. Nothing in the article indicates it serves a navigation purpose. No sources found in the above Keep fanspam and the canvassing is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

Gianni Mammolotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Command information newspaper[edit]

Command information newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Kosarevsky[edit]

Pyotr Kosarevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP, his career is largely confined to second-level football. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiowv[edit]

Radiowv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clearfrienda 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Keresoma[edit]

Milford Keresoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bomer[edit]

Sally Bomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources provided provide the kind of WP:DEPTH needed for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice[edit]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamelas halt[edit]

Lamelas halt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable (and it has been affirmatively established by sitewide consensus that train stations are not inherently notable). The first source is just an entry in a list, and the second only supports the line the station is on being closed. There is nothing of substance provided about the station itself. Could potentially be redirected to Sabor line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTEL-CD[edit]

KTEL-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
KUPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; few sources; needs updating. Could merge with KASA-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering Lumber Co. 12[edit]

Pickering Lumber Co. 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any significant coverage (really, any coverage at all) of this locomotive in secondary sources. Appears to fail GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah[edit]

Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is idiotic... This is an article about a one-year old who has been declared the youngest male artist by Guinness because, like any child, he can randomly put paint on a canvas. It seems pretty clear that there will never be sustained coverage of him. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RefugePoint[edit]

RefugePoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is largely not independent and the remaining sourcing fails to provide significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Key information about the organization, including its mission statement and how many people it has reached have changed. Abfdesigns (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — abfdesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"It has a mission statement" is not relevant. Almost every organization has a mission statement. DS (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mission statement for this organization was recently updated and the new changes reflect this. Editor has updated this wiki to be less promotional/more neutral, as well as added multiple external sources. Alipapp7 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Alipapp7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I opened many of the refs and none supported notability. They were trivial mentions, routine coverage or tangential. This is a small organisation and not suitable for inclusion. Desertarun (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Desertarun, thanks for your feedback. I genuinely want to improve this page and provide accurate and helpful information. I am not sure what the standard for what constitutes a small vs large organization, but I noticed that many organizations that would be considered "peer" organizations to RefugePoint also have pages, such as HIAS, Women's Refugee Commission, Church World Service, and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). I see that IRAP's page is flagged as a "stub" and has this note from Wikipedia: "This article about a philanthropic or charitable organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The page about RefugePoint is an article about a charitable organization, and the edits I suggested were an attempt to help Wikipedia to expand information about the organization and to update outdated information. If there are specific action steps that can be suggested to improve this page and avoid deletion, please advise. Thank you.Abfdesigns (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've given no valid arguments for keeping this. You need to read our notability policies, particularly WP:NORG. Further, your arguments amount to whataboutism, which is not an arguemnt that should be used here. The specifics you need to understand is that the sources need to fulfill WP:SIRS; if there are not three sources that all meet SIRS, then the subject is not notable, and therefore does not merit an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Gupta[edit]

Harish Kumar Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Page reads as resume for job application. Things he did or delegated as correctional officer and none of it is a significant achievement and widely known to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head of the police of Andhra Pradesh, a major state of India. For those used to state police forces having a limited role, state police forces in India are huge and provide all policing in the state. Clearly notable and sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Bari (professional)[edit]

Abdul Bari (professional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halo @Timothy.
I'm trying to revise again to ensure that the language tone I'm using meets WP:SIRS. I make sure that the media referenced is registered by government institutions. You can check the names of the media here . If you think there's anything inappropriate, please let me know which parts need revision so I can learn and become more enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia. All the references I use are addressing the subject directly and deeply about Abdul Bari profile (not just ordinary news) regarding his education and career.
The writing style commonly used by Indonesian media when profiling someone often revolves around key moments. For instance, when they assume a certain position, celebrate a birthday, or receive an award. In Indonesia, these are referred to as non-trivial news.
Thanks Deniirawan82 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in english 'Professional' is usually qualified by an occupation or skill... if he is a business person, the word professional would not normally be used. JarrahTree 14:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough notability for a standalone article. Being a director of a state-owned enterprise does not confer automatic notability as it didn't satisfy WP:NPOL. His other achievements also didn't pass the notability threshold. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew O'Connor (writer)[edit]

Andrew O'Connor (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't really think this person is notable enough. It has zero sources, and that it hasn't been really expanded that much. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nom is based purely on the current stage of the article and not on the notability of the subject. If a basic BEFORE had been done the Sydney Morning Herald linked in the Tuvalu (novel) page would have been seen demonstrating that the subject does not have zero sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duffbeerforme: that is still only one source that goes towards establishing notability. A Google search I did found a bunch of references to 'Andrew O'Connor' but I suspect that none of them are this Andrew O'Connor. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did say about the notability in the first sentence. Maybe I forgot to say that my Google search mostly returns the actor. Also, Google seems to no longer return the number of results I have been getting (in the form of about 1,000,000 results (0.10 seconds)). We have many pages without sources but I think due to the new rules, any articles created today without sources will almost certainly result in an AFD, merge, redirect or drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only finding hits for others then refine your search. This man wrote a book called Tuvalu so search for "Andrew O'Connor" Tuvalu and you may get better results, such as [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Simple really. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, nothing found in BEFORE that has SIGCOV from independent sources. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does not meet SIGCOV and would fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Austlit lists 17 works about his works. Below are from some of the better known publications listed. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does meet SIGCOV and would pass WP:IS.duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pierce, Peter (23 September 2006), "Gaining in translation", The Age
Full length review of Tuvalu. (Peter Pierce is professor of Australian literature at James Cook University.)
Stubbings, Diane (19 August 2006), "All-absorbing look at search for an elusive dream", The Canberra Times
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Ley, James (19 August 2006), "The island in the mind", The Sydney Morning Herald
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Tucker, Genevieve (6 September 2006), "Fraught between two worlds", The Australian
Full length review of Tuvalu.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Article about O'Connor.
  • Keep: this is a classic case of an editor equating a lack of references with notability. It has needed, and has now received, an edit that includes a number of references. The author's novel, Tuvalu, is an Australian prize-winner, which makes it notable. To delete the page of the author of that novel would diminish the encyclopedia. The page still needs more work rather than a deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Takahashi[edit]

Taichi Takahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Japanese rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV. Feel free to present any new sources you found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Couple of lengthly profiles here and here. this, this and this all found just by googling his name. A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 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, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School[edit]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "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. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
    I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christian Nanetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @Das osmnezz. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Jankovski[edit]

Vladimir Jankovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are a bios on a nomination pages, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. BEFORE found nothing meeting SIGCOV with indepth coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trentham Football Netball Club[edit]

Trentham Football Netball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, here is a link to the official history book of the Australian Rules football club, Trentham Football / Netball Club in Victoria, Australia - https://trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMDF-LD[edit]

WMDF-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a burst of really interesting coverage at its launch, but otherwise, the record is pretty lackluster. RabbitEars doesn't even seem to know what its main channel airs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The WGAY-LP coverage and the extra source I slid in, should be enough to justify keeping the article into Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 21:13, 5 May 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) 18:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization[edit]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannat Murad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mannat Murad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles doesn't meet WP:GNG as per WP:Notability (television) Sameeerrr (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mitchell (wrestler)[edit]

Ryan Mitchell (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable pro wrestler, doesn't meet WP:GNG. 1, he worked on independent promotions. Not enough coverage from third party sources about him for an article. 2, the article is half hoax. He never won titles on OVW, TNA Wrestling, JCW or PWG. Looking his Cagematch profile, just won a few titles. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like, months ago, an IP included Josh Hardy and Ryan Mitchell on several championships as champions, which is fake. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series)[edit]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama clearly fails to meet GNG as I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS besides some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon[edit]

Ehraam-e-Junoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage in RS. ROTM coverage like this, and namechecks like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Cajun Ranch McCrispy[edit]

Bacon Cajun Ranch McCrispy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. A BEFORE has shown no sources that establish it. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Shishkin[edit]

Andrey Shishkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirf Tum (2023 TV series)[edit]

Sirf Tum (2023 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this, this and even this is not enough to meet GNG. Point to note, The News which produced the media coverage and Geo TV that aired this TV show are part of the same Jang Media Group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Vocational Training Institute[edit]

Shaheen Vocational Training Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly PROMO. Fails NCORP as well GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka[edit]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR broadcasters[edit]

List of NASCAR broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, one is a dead page and three of those are about the announcers, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis[edit]

Institute for Legislative Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage in RS is limited to mere-mentions of its existence. FOX News has a substantial writeup [18], but I don't think they can be considered reliable for this topic. The fact that syndicated local news have seen fit to effectively reprint their press releases (e.g. [19], [20]) does not inspire further confidence. I'd want to see actual analysis of the group's history and work in multiple national-level publications (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post) to substantiate NCORP here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronix corporation[edit]

Electronix corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional. Can we move it to the draft or delete? Tanhasahu (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to Delete, the company is no longer in business 76.192.65.129 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws[edit]

Redemption Paws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thor (The Asylum)[edit]

Thor (The Asylum) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG--coverage is limited to within the context of reviews of Almighty Thor. Cribbing a reception section out of snippets of reviews of that film that comment on the titular character borders on absurd. Restoring the redirect to Almighty Thor seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Almighty Thor, the first movie this character appeared in. As described in the nomination, none of the sources are really about the character himself at all. They are general reviews or coverage of the films as a whole, without any kind of significant coverage specifically on the character that would warrant splitting it out into a separate article. On top of that, a number of these reviews are from websites that I am not sure would even qualify as being valid reliable sources. I honestly doubt this is going to be a very likely search, but as redirects are cheap, redirecting it to the main movie article would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Almighty Thor; I'll note the sequel to that film has no article, but AGF that the first film should merit a single article. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Everett[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elijah Everett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The existing references are limited to chess databases that verify a moderately high ELO, trivial mentions in broader coverage of major chess matches, and a link to the subject's page as a for-hire language teacher. Google and Google News searches do not support widespread coverage in any reliable sources and the subject does not hold any FIDE titles BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hoërskool Noordheuwel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at AfD in October 2023; insufficient improvement in sourcing to meet N:SCHOOL. Sources are to hyperlocal news sources that read like user-submitted or sponsored copy ("Die kersie op die koek: Hoërskool Noordheuwel is die TOP AKADEMIESE SKOOL in Gauteng-Wes en bekleë ook die nr 5 posisie in Gauteng waarop ons baie trots is"... "The icing on the cake: Noordheuwel High School is the TOP ACADEMIC SCHOOL in Gauteng West and also holds the No. 5 position in Gauteng, which we are very proud of.") or a news site comprising regional high school sport news, not clearing the bar for NORG or GNG. A BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro[edit]

Feli Ferraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to passing mentions and professional profiles in non-independent sources. The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew[edit]

Computer Stew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
    Sources
    1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."

    2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ukraine relations[edit]

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't look like they even have official embassies. This info could easily go in Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and/or Foreign relations of Ukraine. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Edeh[edit]

Tony Edeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, article standing largely on non-existent and primary sources. Of the eight sources in the article, two are primary sources from the awards received by the subject while three sources (number 6- TheCable, 7-Sahara Reporters, and 8- Premium Times) are about an unrelated Tony Edeh (The Chairman, Eha-Amufu and Fulani Communities Peace and Reconciliation Committee) according to the sources 6, 7, and 8, reviewed. Supposing the Tony Edeh mentioned in those three articles are the subject of this article, he still falls below notability guidelines because he received only passing mentions. The only source that tends to count towards notability is the one from the Guardian (Nigeria) but that is not enough to establish minimum notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus International school[edit]

Venus International school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find anything online except the school's own website - a facebook page with limited information - an impressive YouTube promotional video - and listing in various 'school finder' websites. No indication of the roll of the school although there appear to be only 16 staff suggesting it is small. No third party references. Need to find third party information - or question notability. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road 89 (Iran)[edit]

Road 89 (Iran) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I cannot find any evidence that Road 89 actually exists. The Google Map between the purported termini does not show any road labels (where it does show others in the area. One of the two provided sources is a map that shows multiple labels on the route, none that match the Farsi script for 89. The other source appears to be about the paving of a road in Gowharan, Hormozgan, but it says nothing about Road 89. The Wikipedia article List of roads and highways in Iran has nothing on it. With the sources failing verification and no other sources to be found, even if it exists, it's certainly not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revera (event)[edit]

Revera (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with no notability per GNG or EVENT. Google search returned no reliable independent coverage on the event. Promotional tone with no denotable notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I couldn't find anything about it on the web except for Facebook posts. This topic doesn't seem notable at all; it appears to be promotional and fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Grabup (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts of Antiquity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Astronauts of Antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Official website no longer exists, and band seems to have been inactive since ~2017. B3251 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOM Charity Award[edit]

JOM Charity Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, non notable Award. Sources number 2 and 3 are same PR puffery published within a month of each other and the contents bear striking similarity and that cannot be taken as a coincidence. Source number 4 from The Sun (Nigeria) is a press release from the JOM Award itself but masked as a news story. Source number 5 from Vanguard (Nigeria) is very similar to sources number 2 and 3 in headlines and in the body and tone of the writing. The headline of the source number 5 says the JOM Award is one of the top 5 charity organisations in the UK but no single UK media outlet is cited in the article – a PR puffery at its best. All other sources cited are similar and unreliable due to their PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bart Appiah[edit]

Anthony Bart Appiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to breathless PR pieces, which use phrasing such as This masterclass is the brainchild of Prince Anthony Bart-Appiah a Royal [21]. Searching online, I was able to find one more substantial source of questionable value: [22]. Normally wedding announcements are considered routine press and do not contribute to notability, but this article offers an unusual amount of biographical depth. Still, it suffers from the same promotional tone, likely lack of independence, and questionable framing of a marriage to an elected politician in a republic (Panama) as if it were a political union of significant import. Overall, I think we fall short of the amount of credible, independent coverage needed to justify an article. signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adigun[edit]

Gbenga Adigun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, the subject clearly fails minimum notability requirement. Article having a bunch of sponsored press releases masked as independent coverage of the subject. The first references from the Sun (Nigeria) is a clear sponsored post and that is evident in the headline and the body of the article presents a clear indication of PR puffery. The Second source from PM News clearly mirrors Wikipedia structure. The handler possibly used that to prove notability and game the system, and maybe a deeper check of the editor who created the page will reveal something. There are about three different articles from Daily Times (Nigeria), while one mirrors Wikipedia style and structure, the tone is clearly PR puffery, the other two articles from same source are on obscure awards. The reference number 8 from the sun is the subject’s own writeup. Source number 12 from Independent is a single mention of the subject. Almost all other sources bear resemblance of PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very comprehensive nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Mccapra (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable. I don't want to bother on source assessment on this. It is crystal clear by reading the pieces from these coverages. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He comfortable meet at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC. With the nominator assessment, Qualify individual might end up been deleted... On google he has major hits. See below

[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], Here he was listed by a notable Daily Times (Nigeria) newspapers among top 3 real estate developers [28] and several awards to prove his notability by major newspapers in Nigeria. And for WP:GNG same apply see [29], [30], [31],As a Fellow Institute of Consulting (FIC) and Fellow Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (FCIPD) he comfortably pass WP:NACADEMIC #3 [32].Calyx2s (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot (TV series)[edit]

Idiot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG which require sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gresham, Oregon#Parks and recreation. Creator is okay with this, no need to drag out an AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Park[edit]

Thom Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thom Park is relatively small (5 acres) and is one of many in Gresham (33 listed on the town website for a population of 110,000). There is nothing obviously notable about it. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Copied from a (misplaced) TFD notice, Special:Diff/1223786218. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newhaven lad@Primefac Page creator here. I was confused by the templates for deletion discussion, but just redirect to Gresham,_Oregon#Parks_and_recreation. Not worried about it. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 14 May 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.

FC Armătura Zalău[edit]

FC Armătura Zalău (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite a large addition, it remains mainly unsourced. Existing sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am on the fence on this article too. I would like to see more sources, is there no Romania wiki page for this club? Govvy (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The situation is a bit sad. The club is 100% notable, but User:AdrianCioran can't help but engage in move-warring, and doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies or the deletion process. Look at the article history: User:Florin1977 tried to keep it in draft space with the edit summary "do not publish yet". AdrianCioran edited disruptively. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'd accept draftify as WP:ATD and that would be community consensus that would enable limited, but escalating, blocks on Adrian. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support such action. Weak understanding of how Wikipedia works and hardly any communication - I'm noting a message written in Romanian on his talk page half a year ago, which translates to: "Don't create pages if you don't know how, because the moderators will delete them". Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS Auxerre Lugoj. Svartner (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafify - as above, not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable even though their successful period was pre-internet, can even find recent articles such as [33]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: A pretty significant football club with some sourcing and notability, but I'd like to see something better than that with more reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naiot Venture Accelerator

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC[edit]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references to prove notability. It is a small, company-sized unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva[edit]

Leyla Abdullayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.
=== Russian language ===
=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===
Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFL All-Time Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WFL All-Time Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an official or recognized team (although that would likely be impossible given the league folded in 1975) that was created by "fans of the WFL". After looking through the sources, it's likely that the "fans" were the 2 authors (and self-appointed "official researchers") of the World Football League Encyclopedia, which appears to have a limited circulation at best and is not independent. The rest of the references are either individual team media guides that likely have zero mention of the team because they were published before the league folded or self-published sites. The previous AfD in 2009 was editors voting "weak keep" and acknowledging the referencing was bad, but because there were references provided (which is clearly not a valid rationale to keep under today's notability standards). Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Allum[edit]

Bert Allum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find significant coverage of him. I searched on newspapers.com for his name as well as "Albert Allum" and "Albie Allum" but no sigcov was found. Dougal18 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created in 2003, this article has been a perma-stub for over two decades and provides little-to-no real information about the organization; it only appears to have one section that is at all notable. The only citation in this article is an obituary written by the organization itself. Looking through Google Scholar, there are absolutely zero sources on this in either Spanish or English. It not only doesn't have significant coverage, it doesn't seem to have any real coverage at all! Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live[edit]

Amazon Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers' Unity – Fourth International[edit]

International Workers' Unity – Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as lacking reliable sources since 2007. On a search for some, I only managed to find two books that even mention this organization: Contemporary Trotskyism and The Twilight of World Trotskyism, both by John Kelly. Neither book provides any substantial detail; most of the mentions are within long lists of Trotskyist internationals, with the only real information being that some of the organization's affiliate sections broke away from it following its formation. As far as I can tell, most of the articles that link to this article are also lists of Trotskyist internationals. It only has one notable section, its Argentine one. I don't think every obscure Trotskyist international needs a dedicated article, and given the complete dearth of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, I think this could safely be deleted or redirected to Socialist Left (Argentina). Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As original author I have no objections to deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [40]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[41] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [42] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum News[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hum News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote although I find it highly suspicious. Regardless, you have just proven why this does not meet notability guidelines. Every single reference you provided falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is NOT considered reliable. There is also no inherent notability for it being "one of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism." Your arguments are more of WP:ILIKEIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, retain it for now; while this article lacks references, it's imperative to enhance it. Considering it's from a prominent news channel, deletion seems unwarranted.
Crosji (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the policy based reason to keep the page? Keeping it because it is from a "prominent news channel" would be fine assuming the sources are there to support the assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional[edit]

EMR Regional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.
    Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. DankJae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GSSS Kot Beja[edit]

GSSS Kot Beja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find out any information about the school. The website is sparse and does not appear to have been updated since 2016. Most of the wiki page is copied from the school website. No other online references in English that I can find. There may of course be notable info about the school in other languages. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dauwa Ahir[edit]

Dauwa Ahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on unreliable sources that only make passing mention of the subject.Ratnahastin (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 15 of 16 sources are poor, unreliable and WP:RAJ era. One source is reliable by Ravindra K. Jain, a former Professor of Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, but this too has no coverage on "Dauwa Ahirs" from the link given. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is missing. Agletarang (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer)[edit]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has only two datbase entry / stats sources. Main statement is that he was on the team for a South American championship but didn't play. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: From the DICCIONARIO BIOGRAFICO DEL FUTBOL BOLIVIANO (1930-2000):

"Nombre completo: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Apodo: La “Araña negra”. Nacimiento: Cochabamba, 6 de julio de 1933. Posición: Guardameta, No 1. Padres: ..... Esposa: ..... Hijos: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Estudios: Primaria Escuela Carrillo, Secundaria Colegio Carrillo de Cochabamba. Otros Estudios: INSEF. Profesor de Educación Física. Cursos de Dirección Técnica. Clubes: En el Club 31 de Octubre (1963), de La Paz. Participación en la selección: Es Campeón Sudamericano de 1963. Jugó por la selección boliviana dos partidos oficiales (1963-1965) y fue batido en tres oportunidades. Es Campeón Sudamericano Invicto 1963. No tuvo participación oficial en dicho campeonato figurando en la banca. Dirección Técnica: Fue Preparador Físico en The 16 Strongest (1990). Otros Datos: Practicó el Atletismo, el Básquetbol, el Voleibol y el Fútbol. Distinciones: El gobierno mediante la repartición respectiva condecoró con la Medalla al Mérito Deportivo en el Grado de Caballero del Deporte, al cumplirse los 40 años de la conquista del XXI Campeonato Sudamericano. Además de ser acreedor a la pensión vitalicia de 4 sueldos mínimos mensuales."

There is also a bit of coverage here, which although not published in a reliable source, is definitely more evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: What's wrong with the ~170 word encyclopedia entry listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on Google Translate, it covers the names of his children and the schools he went to in brief list form, and then briefly covers his playing career and then his pension... it's not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It gives a decent enough bit of coverage for SIGCOV I think:

Full name: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Nickname: The “Black Spider”. Birth: Cochabamba, July 6, 1933. Position: Goalkeeper, No 1. Parents: ..... Wife: ..... Children: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Studies: Primary School Carrillo, Secondary School Carrillo de Cochabamba. Other Studies: INSEF. Physical Education Teacher. Technical Management Courses. Clubs: At the 31 de Octubre Club (1963), in La Paz. Participation in the national team: He is the 1963 South American Champion. He played for the Bolivian team in two official matches (1963-1965) and was beaten three times. He is the 1963 Undefeated South American Champion. He had no official participation in said championship, appearing on the bench. Technical Direction: He was a Physical Trainer on The 16 Strongest (1990). Other Information: He played Athletics, Basketball, Volleyball and Soccer. Distinctions: The government, through the respective distribution, awarded the Medal of Sports Merit in the Degree of Knight of Sports, on the 40th anniversary of the conquest of the XXI South American Championship. In addition to being a creditor of the lifetime pension of 4 minimum monthly salaries

  • Keep - The above source is pretty comprehensive and he definetly has more offline sources, having won the 1963 South American Championship with the Bolivia national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy[edit]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee  converse  02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [49]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 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) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [50] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [51]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wreck in a Gale[edit]

A Wreck in a Gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works. The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @Carnival200 and Hyperbolick: you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film?" as a good idea. I am wondering if you had this film in mind too. Although I stand by my K !vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD. 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - found in a few catalogues and appears to have been shown in some minor festivals. Unless someone has shown the context of why this film is important in the history of British cinema, I don't see how it meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG, name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV and nothing found that meets WP:SIRS. Ping me if sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  14:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against Bengalis in India[edit]

Discrimination against Bengalis in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is WP:OR and is making connection of any unfavorable event that occurred in or around West Bengal as discrimination against its people. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Boatman[edit]

The Water Boatman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short horror film recently tagged for notability. Only sources are brief announcements in Indiegogo/Dread Central (and IMDb) and https://filmfreeway.com/thewaterboatman. Could be redirected to Marcus Bentley if one really thinks an WP:ATD is better. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descending solid coalitions[edit]

Descending solid coalitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "descending solid coalitions" is apparently missing in both Google Books and Google scholar, which is highly irregular for a valid scientific term. The article refers to a single source that is also missing the term. PROD was reverted. The alternate name, "Descending Acquiescing Coalitions", apparently has no independent WP:SIGCOV, see discussion at Talk:Descending solid coalitions#Proposed deletion. Викидим (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As I noted, additional sources use many closely-related terms, like "Solid coalitions", "Proportionality for Solid Coalitions", etc. The article is useful in general discussions of voting systems because it has a fairly unique set of properties like later-no-harm and participation, which makes it useful pedagogically (in articles discussing these criteria). –Sincerely, A Lime 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristbergs IF[edit]

Kristbergs IF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 8th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro[edit]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 6th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic cross skating[edit]

Nordic cross skating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find that it meets WP:N; I'm not sure any good merge/redirect targets exist, and as this is wholly unsourced, merging wouldn't necessarily be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Around the world (card game)[edit]

Around the world (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land mine (drinking game).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Saad Abdullah[edit]

Laith Saad Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 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, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given his novels and play I think he may possibly be notable under WP:AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Thorpe Priestley[edit]

Philip Thorpe Priestley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews. I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Blevins[edit]

Graeme Blevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still try to include more sources that contribute to the WP:GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here [53], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harris (figure skater)[edit]

Lee Harris (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; not sure whether the rest qualifies as notable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tshibaka[edit]

Kelly Tshibaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.
    Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
    Specifically:
    • Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
    • The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
    • The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
    If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?
    As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.
    As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.
    Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?
    All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?
    Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “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.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".
    Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines
    It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.
    So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?
    I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.
    All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:
    What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?
    She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.
    Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.
    I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep
    Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:
Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.
Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.
... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...
There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

Battle of Gandgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

Battle of Bannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Maria de Roumanie[edit]

Alina Maria de Roumanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wife of an ex-king’s grandson, member of a royal house deposed in 1947, 70 years before she joined. Achievements: organizing events, getting married, having two children, attending a baptism, two funerals and a wine festival. Biruitorul Talk 05:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers[edit]

Brad Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing exactly stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [54] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [55] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Jokaru[edit]

Jokaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources doesn't meet our requirement for WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Maldives. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage seems to show it’s notable..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires an article being significantly covered in reliable sources WP:RS. I still don't find that in the article as the sources aren't reliable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to consider The Press unreliable and it's a review. Muniavas has various articles about the film (https://www.muniavas.com/46563) (definitely not great journalism, but I see no reason to consider it plainly "unreliable").
    The following inclusionary criteria might also be met; "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." But if everyone thinks it does not apply and sources are insufficient, sure, redirect to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film should indeed be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (Dev song)[edit]

Fireball (Dev song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to prove notability for this lonely single. Despite being converted into a redirect years ago, it was still reinstated soon after. Testeraccount101 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 15 DNB[edit]

Chak 15 DNB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prizren Front[edit]

Prizren Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant copy of already existing articles: Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, and Prizren incident (1999). The entire article is about these events and content was directly copy-pasted directly from each of those articles.

There's also some original research going on, as various events during the Kosovo war (presumably occurring in the district of Prizren) are lumped together and termed "Prizren Front", rather than reliable sources actually using that term and discussing the events as part of a specific theater. Griboski (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t delete this article, we should let other editors to use to add on to this article. The Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, Prizren incident (1999) should be used as a start to the article. Shqiptar1999 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Ram Temple[edit]

Perth Ram Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources cited don't seem very reliable. The article makes an extraordinary claim ("tallest temple dedicated to Rama ever built in the world"), which should result in more local coverage, but there is no coverage in local media such as The West Australian or ABC News. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ghosts (Pac-Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?
Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis Let's break this down:
  • This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
  • Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
  • This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
  • the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
  • Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [56], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... CaptainGalaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [57] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election[edit]

2028 Tasmanian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uptown Scottsbluff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [58], [59]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vivas Barandica[edit]

Daniel Vivas Barandica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP for non-notable Colombian PR/marketer who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Several sources are interviews conducted by or articles written by the subject, and thus not contributing toward notability. Three articles ostensibly about the subject are virtually identical ([60], [61], [62]) and thus likely marketing/bio copy; they do not demonstrate independence cannot be relied on. There are two articles about a social media controversy Vivas was involved in, but if this is all we have to go on, WP:BLP1E applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoffmann[edit]

Jim Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. References in article are routine mentions and a brief death notice; a search does not provide any indication of meeting WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Linga[edit]

MV Linga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Only references are primary. No independent coverage online. Clearfrienda 💬 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abro (tribe)[edit]

Abro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK:
Though I would share main concern. I suppose it needs deeper collective thought. I do not see any WP:RFCBEFORE to have taken place at Talk:Abro (tribe) or rather better would have been at WT:PAK.
Likelihood of similar articles in 100s?
Category:Sindhi tribes likely to have more than 250 similar stubs. The way articles seem to have formed I can imagine similar would be the case for many in Category:Tribes of Pakistan. Though there is one central article Ethnic groups of Pakistan it's scope does not seem to be tribal specific.
Importance of topic and issue
I am surprised region wise central articles for tribes of Pakistan do not exist but such large number of stubs going no where seem to exist. Baradari (brotherhood) system is influential cultural part of Pakistan and that article too is a stub. Tribal and ethnicity antecedents form clan culture / Baradari (brotherhood) so anthropologically it's important core of Pakistan's demographic history. Though not paid enough attention to on WP.
Idk if any similar articles were listed and deleted up til now but my suggestion is Draftify and merge region wise all similar articles after RfC @ WT:PAK. If no one is ready to work on the drafts then put in my user name space I shall try to promote for expansion in due course. Bookku (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is it really possible to merge all region wise articles? There are many which may not be suitable for a single list-like descriptive article publishing. Jadeja, Kalhora, Soomro, Jokhio, Bhutto, Burfat are some examples. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well developed ones need not be merged. Even for region list may be long but it can be further divided tribal district wise because many tribes are likely to be concentrated in few districts only. May be you can have separate article for extinct tribes. End of the day AfD is would not be right venue to take a detail call but project notice board would be IMO. Bookku (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameja (clan)[edit]

Sameja (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. The references provided are more than sufficient and reliable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)[edit]

Shoro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)[edit]

Soho (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676)[edit]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real (unlike some of the author's other articles) but very minor battle. It's just three lines in the source (wrong page btw, it's actually 149) that were hallucinated by an LLM into becoming an article. – Hilst [talk] 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Catch Up (British TV programme)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Catch Up (British TV programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has very little information and there's already been changes to the presenter list, being deleted/re-added. There are no reliable sources or references included to make this TV programme worthy of an article. Possibly link this article to BBC News (at a push). Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Follow You Imagine Dragons cover.jpg[edit]

File:Follow You Imagine Dragons cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rockboy1009 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This cover was recently uploaded to replace the preferred North American cover, File:Imagine Dragons - Follow You Cutthroat.png, for an American band in the article, Follow You (Imagine Dragons song). Per discogs, [63], this cover is not even shown and looks like part of the European cover. This cover is from Amoeba Music, but doing a Google search I can find no other versions like this one. The North American cover is from the Apple store and also used in Soundcloud, [64]. The uploader stated it "No reason to have the double single cover when a separate song single cover exists.", but the double cover is the original cover and this one might be fan art. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cutthroat Imagine Dragons cover.jpg[edit]

File:Cutthroat Imagine Dragons cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rockboy1009 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This cover was recently uploaded to replace the preferred North American cover, File:Imagine Dragons - Follow You Cutthroat.png, for an American band in the newly created article, Cutthroat (song). First off, this article might fail WP:NMUSIC and being a released as a B-side to Follow You (Imagine Dragons song), the article might be better served if merged to that song. Per discogs, [65], this cover is not even shown and looks like part of the European cover. This cover says it is from Soundcloud, but doing a Google search I can find no other versions like this one. The North American cover is from the Apple store and is the actual cover used on Soundcloud, [66]. The uploader stated it "No reason to have the double single cover when a separate song single cover exists.", but the double cover is the original cover and this one might be fan art. Aspects (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Soda Den games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I am not sure if categories with a single page (or less than a few) is allowed. Therefore, I am bringing this to discussion. I am putting Category:Amstrad video games and Category:BlankMediaGames games for the same reason, since Twinkle (the userscript) doesn't me do that. JuniperChill (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to mention 'Category:BlankMediaGames games' and one other but for some reason, it isn't appearing. JuniperChill (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art festivals in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name is too similar to Category:Arts festivals in the United States, creating confusion about which articles and categories belong in which. Vegantics (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Upon further research I now understand that this is a (admittedly confusing) standard across Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I can retract a discussion but no longer feel the discussion is needed. Vegantics (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegantics As nominator, you can vote Withdraw, as long as nobody has given a vote in support of your proposal. Then the discussion will be speedily closed. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I appreciate your help. Vegantics (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Seems okay, but we don't have any Category:Visual arts festivals cat (tree) yet. Does it overlap with Category:Visual arts competitions, Category:Visual arts conferences and/or Category:Visual arts exhibitions? The latter has Category:Art festivals as a child, so that seems to be an apt parent. On the other hand, do all current items in Category:Art festivals in the United States fit the "visual arts" domain? Category:Arts festivals by type suggests a lot of other domains. If you could answer those questions, we might have a better idea what you are proposing. NLeeuw (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the questions. In reviewing Category:Art festivals in the United States, which is described as intended for "festivals focused on the visual arts," I noticed some articles which do not seem applicable. I suspect this is because editors made the same mistake that I did of confusing it with Category:Arts festivals in the United States. However I now realize that this is a bigger standard across Wikipedia and would require a much larger, more extensive discussion. Vegantics (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Would you like to start somewhere else, or could we use this case as an example to set a precedent for future discussions? I should add I've never been to the United States and visuals arts are quite outside my area of expertise (hence the questions for clarification), but I would like to help you out in finding the best way of categorising all these articles. Personally, I find the current category tree quite confusing, so it's a good idea to discuss how we could improve it. NLeeuw (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does need to be addressed, but I want to do some additional research into how extensive this is and how much renaming would be required. I'm not equipped to lead such a discussion and would rather drop it for the time being. Vegantics (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay. As I said above, you can vote to Withdraw your own proposal. Take your time to your time to work out what you would like to discuss, and then come back some time with a new proposal. Good luck! NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Upon further research I now understand that this is a (admittedly confusing) standard across Wikipedia. Vegantics (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States politicians killed during the Civil War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per article title American Civil War. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion

@AHI-3000 and Ymblanter: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support per nom, but I need clarifications first: why is "United States" proposed to be omitted? So that it could also include Confederate politicians and perhaps foreign politicians who somehow got killed in the ACW? That would mean it no longer fits in the Category:20th-century American politicians (should be Category:19th-century American politicians), and more broadly the Category:American people tree, since Confederates and foreigners were arguably not "United States citizens" for the duration of the ACW (at least from the Confederate POV). In fact, I see the category currently already contains Confederate politicians, so removing "United States" is a good idea, but then we should remove Category:20th-century American politicians as a parent. But that may be a bit too legally speaking on my part . NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least 20th century is a clear mistake, I changed it to 19th. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zzap!64 Gold Medal Award winners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A category for winners of "Gold Medal", awarded by a video game magazine. No article on it. See also this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCLA Department of Earth Planetary and Space Sciences alumni[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Degrees from a school within a university may be defining, a degree from a specific department isn't typically defining. See for a similar case Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_23#Category:Harvard_University_Department_of_Psychology_alumni Mason (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship names with ukrainian origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (But if kept, it should be renamed to "Ukrainian")Mason (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON * Pppery * it has begun... 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architects[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEPON. These categories only contain an eponymous article and a subcategory, so having the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a larger nomination, giving an extra week for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Sea of Moving Ice[edit]

Unlikely search term. Could refer to lots of frozen bodies of water, and not mentioned at the target article. It may have been mentioned at a point when Wikipedia was more lax with its standards, but it would not fit with Wikipedia standards today. Jontesta (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - it is mentioned on the article Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faerûn#Northern regions. Sea of Moving Ice could perhaps be renamed "Sea of Moving Ice (region)" (a la the Icewind Dale (region) redirect) to keep the article history while deleting the more general redirect. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree about moving it, but only if there's something it actually needed to be disambiguated against. I don't see any other uses of the term on a Google search. BOZ (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Patterson[edit]

Unlikely search term. Not mentioned at the target article. It may have been mentioned at a point when Wikipedia was more lax with its standards, but it would not fit with Wikipedia standards today. Jontesta (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don’t have time to look into this deeply right now, but this edit summary suggests that this might be an {{R from merge}}, in which case its history might need to be preserved for attribution. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to James Patterson (disambiguation). Seems implausible that none of those people have ever been referred to as "Jimmy" and the current target is mentioned there. (Maybe not the ideal link since the article doesn't mention the name but multiple other Medal of Honor articles do so it probably deserves to be there in some manner per WP:DABMENTION). Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the talk page, the former article at this title was merged into three different articles. Deletion isn't an option, because we need to maintain proper attribution. While the character isn't mentioned at the current target, it appears to be the most sensible target among the various game articles. None of the other articles listed at James Patterson (disambiguation) mention that their subjects were called Jimmy. - Eureka Lott 20:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response you're referring to outdated information from 2009. There is no more merge and there is nothing left to attribute. As I said in my nomination, it is from a time when Wikipedia standards were more lax. It should not and is not coming back, and thus a redirect is not suitable. Jontesta (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Britannica (video game)[edit]

Delete. Redirects to disambiguation page, the entry was without a wikilink. The game and developer No Fun Games are both non-notable, unlikely to be turned into articles. Mika1h (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor)[edit]

I can't determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it seems like her screen name used to be/occasionally was, based on the IMDb [67] page and (all following links may contain pornography) [68] and just general Google search results showing video titles that mention both names "Bailey Jay" "quinn". Now, redirects don't need quite the same level of reliable sourcing to exist so I'm still on the fence if this is useful enough to exist and if a mention of the name could be added in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, better if mention added at target. If people are looking for information on this pornographic pseudonym, this person's biography is where they will find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention at the target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Games[edit]

The Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games". See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#2022 Games. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as [69] [70] [71], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level. 2008 Games and 1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as 2006 Winter Games and/or 2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguate, or retarget to 2020 in video games, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"
would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree on the summer games part, 2020 Summer Olympics has 50x more views than 2020 in games. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there were no Winter Olympics in 2020? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect, and I don't think it would be a useful dab page either. If you search for "2020 games", ignoring this redirect, you'll get results that take you to the likely spots mentioned in this discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopened upon request for additional consideration of the arguments above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utopes, the Summer Olympics are commonly the Games, and are referred to as, say, "Games of the XXXII Olympiads". The capitalization makes it clear that this is not about, say, video games, but one specific event. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Female Rage: The Musical[edit]

"Female Rage: The Musical" does not exist, this page was simply created in response to a trademark filing by Taylor Swift's team. Theknine2 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ross (ER)[edit]

Unlikely search term. Also Doug Ross actually covers this Doug Ross from ER. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Littlehampton Book Services[edit]

No mention in article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:PDreview[edit]

Looks like a template that never really took off in usage when it was made in 2010. At this point, such reviews are handled by WP:FFD, and the {{Oldffdfull}} template points readers in the direction of relevant discussions for files. (Also, if this template is deleted, Category:PD reviewed files should probably be deleted per {{Db-g8}} as dependent on the nominated template.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Water polo men's national under-19 team[edit]

There are no under-19 team articles, nor do I suspect there will be any created in the near future (yes, it's a bit of CRYSTAL, but water polo isn't exactly a hugely popular sport). Thus, I see little to no reason to have these templates purely for the purposes of creating redlinks. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship, 2024 Women's European U-19 Water Polo Championship and 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship Qualifiers articles that use the templates and will be used even more when both tournaments start. Thus ,they will obviously be used in the future and the men's U-19 template has been extensively used in the 2024 Men's European U-19 Water Polo Championship Qualifiers page. Get your facts right before you nominate stuff for deletion. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ILoveSport2006, you have misunderstood my nomination; ‹See Tfd› Hungary does not exist. Nor does any page for any country at the U19 level. Since this is unlikely to change in the near future, there is no reason to have custom linking templates for them. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I did misunderstand, what's the alternative? Having to write Hungary men's national under-19 water polo team every single time for each country when needed and adding a flag icon every time. The main benefit of this template and templates like it is the convenience. Also, these templates plus the European U-19 Championship articles will increase the chances of a potential article for a national team being created. There was no reason for the templates in the past because no articles were created for the U-19 age group in water polo, but now that I started the articles and have the ambition to create more articles for the U-19 World Championships and future European Championships in the age group, there will be more of a need for these templates in the future. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electronic writing[edit]

Pretty unacceptable in its current state in its purpose within Template:List of writing systems. Remsense诉 11:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Thom Park[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Template does not exist. If the title linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Park is relatively small (5 acres) and is one of many in Gresham (33 listed on the town website for a population of 110,000). There is nothing obviously notable about it. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cinéma pur[edit]

Only used in 3 articles despite the long list, and fails most of WP:NAVBOX's criteria for a good navbox. There's no article on the subject of the template (it's a subtopic of Non-narrative film). Most of the articles refer to their respective movements (e.g. Dadaism, Surrealism, New American Cinema) rather than cinéma pur. Without the navigation template, most of these articles wouldn't link to each other since they come from very different periods and movements within non-narrative or experimental film. hinnk (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from what you say, it sounds like it should be deleted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can speed it along - CSD author, etc. let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a no-brainer, I blanked the template - leaving in the discussion part - and removed links to the template (see what links here).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted as U1 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: Season 5[edit]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: Season 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Want to delete the OBB series I made in my sandbox. Migsbasinillo (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Migsbasinillo: the g7 template is quicker. Catfurball (talk) 16:21, 14 May 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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted as U1 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: The Rematch[edit]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: The Rematch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Want to delete the OBB series I made in my sandbox. Migsbasinillo (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Migsbasinillo: the g7 template is quicker to delete your pages. Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 14 May 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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted as U1 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: Celebrity Edition[edit]

User:Migsbasinillo/sandbox/OLGAnian Big Brother: Celebrity Edition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Want to delete the OBB series I made in my sandbox. Migsbasinillo (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Migsbasinillo: the g7 template is quicker to delete your pages. Catfurball (talk) 16:25, 14 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844[edit]

Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft with a very strong whiff of the WP:HOAX. It covers off the obvious quibble that nobody's ever heard of this with a claim that it was suppressed until recently, but even the sourcing isn't bearing that out.
To begin with, had the Canadian government so recently declassified any documents revealing such events, that would have been reported as news, but I've done extensive WP:BEFORE searches and absolutely no such reportage can be found.
But even the idea that such a thing could have been covered up for so long in the first place is also deeply suspect: Canada already had newspapers like The Globe and The Banner and The Examiner in 1844, and they would absolutely have found out about and reported on events like the ones described here. A "Battle of North York", with seven stolen cannons being fired only a few miles north of Toronto, and you think neither George Brown nor Francis Hincks ever even caught wind of stolen cannons being transported up Yonge Street? A "Battle of Scugog", basically smack dab in Port Perry, yet somehow nobody ever knew about it? I don't think so. (Also, Port Perry already existed, and Yonge Street already went all the way to Barrie, by 1844, so absolutely none of this is "too far out in the wilderness for anybody to have noticed".)
Even more importantly, however, one of the two "sources" cited here is definitely falsified: it's a book that really exists, but was published 113 years earlier than the footnote claims -- and it's a book that's in the public domain and thus fully readable on the Internet Archive and HathiTrust, so I and another editor at WikiProject Canada have both already grepped through it looking for any evidence of this, and both came up dry.
Admittedly I haven't been able to access the other book cited here at all, but given the complete lack of any evidence of this anywhere else, it's profoundly unlikely that it actually claims any of this either — and if it does claim any of this, given the complete lack of evidence of this anywhere else it's lying. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax per nom, and this could even be "AI"-generated, as the style resembles such content, and the year error in the reference and fake referencing also resembles such content.—Alalch E. 14:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a load of horse hockey. - Whpq (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

User talk:216.15.18.224 (closed)[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:216.15.18.224 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted under G6 midway through an MfD discussion in which multiple editors had argued in favour of keeping it. The deletion was therefore not uncontroversial maintenance, and is (in my view) out of process. In my opinion, the page should be undeleted, and the MfD reopened to finish running its course. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion, (a) because as most people said at the MFD, there is no rational need for it, and (b) there is possibly a privacy aspect here. But mostly per (c) process for process sake is an actively harmful attitude. WP:IAR is still a thing. That said, Bbb23 was pretty optimistic when he deleted this to save people from having to argue some more. Silly Bbb23, the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. G6 was wrong, but the page clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:U2, with the same outcome. I have no problem moving Mandiace's month-old request for help to their own Talk page. But frankly, I can't believe a dozen editors wasted time on that MfD, and who knows how many more will waste time on this pointless DRV. Please withdraw and I'll move that help tag myself. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The help request was moved to Mandiace's Talk page. Still there although I think Mandiace is gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your request to withdraw, I’m considering doing so, given the initial comments here. However, I don’t believe U2 would have been valid either, given that multiple editors in good faith had opposed the page’s deletion at all - it still would have short-circuited an ongoing deletion discussion in which such opposition had been expressed. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion, already consensus for that in the MfD. The whole business is a mind-numbing waste of editor time and energy, resources that could have been spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse U2 but not undeletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment which is the reality: And if the MFD was a waste of time, this is also a waste of time. Just let it stay deleted, no point in trying to reinstate it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"