Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 24	December 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Logan Brown (pregnant man)

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

I feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. This article is barely a stub, and effectively only says "this exists." WP:BLP1E is absolutely relevant, there's nothing else this article could expand to with the current coverage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article, which now includes a much wider range of sources, and a review of their book, and other work Lajmmoore (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/s to address BLP1E, I think the book, and more recent coverage of them shifts the article away from "notable for one event". also, i wonder if the article name should change - rather than (pregnant man) perhaps (activist) or (author) - as he's not pregnant now! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this resolves the BLP1E issue. He is entirely known for this one event in his life. That's it. Publishing his own book does not alleviate the fact that all the sourcing is about this one aspect of his life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:BLP1E. Astaire (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep he had international coverage: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. LIrala (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" does not save this from being a WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all sources are about the pregnancy.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, no evidence of high-profile activities outside of the pregnancy.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, the chance that a single pregnancy is significant enough to deserve its own article is slim to none. Astaire (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Astaire - while most sources are related the Glamour cover feature - this one is about the book and the Manchester Evening News is a more recent interview, so not quite all Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is about the pregnancy, and the Manchester Evening News interview is also largely about the pregnancy (as well as a modeling campaign which happened because of the pregnancy). Astaire (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I do remember the famous magazine cover. There has only been one news article published about him since he gave birth. I'm not sure that's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 articles from around the world linked in the article and in here. Will add from these. --Shelter3 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have probably voted keep but WP:BLP1E is pretty clear --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown is an activist and a social worker and not only had a child while a man but wrote two books. Agree with Lajmmoore, the article name should change to (activist) so WP:BLP1E will no longer be an issue: Brown continues to be active for trans rights and the queer community in a country that's slower on their rights than the U.S. even though they have universal health care. Glamour UK interviewer even said in June 2023 "In the UK, there's a lot of transphobia at the moment" --Shelter3 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelter3: you voted twice --FMSky (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second was a response to you really. Not sure how I would've updated my first vote. Don't assume the worst! Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this comment speaks to notability as defined by Wikipedia. There are thousands of people who are activists, social workers, or authors who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. To overcome the WP:BLP1E issue, we need reliable sources with significant coverage in a context beyond the pregnancy. Astaire (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment just a reminder that merge is also a possible outcome, as outlined at WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Lajmmoore (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. Could you do that or another editor? Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would require identifying a target article to merge into, and proposing that as an alternative to deletion. Frankly, I cannot think of a valid merge target. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
their partners article could work Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The changes to the article since nomination has shown continued coverage through this year. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "continued coverage" is still only about his pregnancy. That doesn't fix the BLP1E problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [6], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [7], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct to say there is "zero coverage" outside 2023, there are articles on his book and more recent career from 2024 (references 6 and 11) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. All the sources provided are about the subject's pregnancy, and there's no evidence of high-profile activities outside said pregnancy.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bailey J Mills - his partner is notable and I think much of Brown's article could be re-worked into a longer personal life section Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge so no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pangal

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

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two sources that provide a few lines (not more than five to even consider a redirect) of coverage are dubious, as one was authored by an Indian civil servant of the British administration and first published in 1900, which falls under WP:RAJ, while the other was first published in 1927. This may explain why the event has not received attention in recent academic works. I would not support the proposal for a redirect unless there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Garuda ^Talk! 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAJ is an essay. Can you explain why removed a source, using the justification that it was a self-published source when it is clearly listed as being originally published by the University of Michigan? TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person you asked the question to, but Google Books upload data doesn't claim Michigan published it; it says "original from". (My guess, Google digitized the copy of the book held by Michigan's library) This HathiTrust index shows that Michigan is a library where the volume can be found, not that the University of Michigan Press was the publisher. All other listings are clear that the book was published by the K. Chandraiah Memorial Trust, and considering that K. Chandraiah was the author, that's a WP:SPS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not what a WP:SPS is. Conflating a memorial trust with the individual that is being memorialised is a misunderstanding of what a trust is. A trust is not an individual. The only way that it might be considered a WP:SPS is if the individual (K. Chandraiah) was the trustee of the trust and the fact that it's a memorial trust suggests that is impossible unless you believe in resurrection. The fact that the book is held by Michigan library also weighs against the argument of it being a SPS. TarnishedPath^talk 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massive U.S. university libraries hold all kinds of nonsense books, believe me. And who on earth is publishing it as "the K. Chandraiah Memorial Trust" if not Chandraiah or his heirs? And if heirs are publishing their ancestor's work, that's still fundamentally self-published. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a memorial trust is? TarnishedPath^talk 09:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath Explantion is given right their in the edit summary, self published sources are generally not reliable unless ofcourse it is published by a renowned author. Garuda ^Talk! 08:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: RAJ is indeed an essay however a book published by a British administrative officer should be used with caution. The claim that the Michigan library contains the book and therefore it must be reliable is not a valid argument. For instance, I raised a similar point in the RSN discussion (see below comment), where I pointed out the book is housed in Osmania University’s library but that does not make it reliable. Garuda ^Talk! 09:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book published by a memorial trust is not a book published by the very person that the trust is memorialising. Do you understand what a trust is? TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make sense. How could a memorial trust be named after the very author? Please seek RSN for your queries. Garuda ^Talk! 10:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A memorial trust, is a charitable fund established to honour the memory of someone who has passed away. Clearly someone who has passed away isn't publishing anything. Addressing Dclemens1971's comment above memorial trusts don't necessarily have the deceased's family/ancestors as trustee/s of the trust estate. The trustee/s can often be accountants/lawyers or other professionals who were involved in setting up the trust. It is the trustee/s who run the trust at their discretion in accordance with the trust deed. I've not seen any good argument put forward as to why the source is a self-published source. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people who publish material via a memorial trust (as opposed to a legitimate publisher) are fans, associates, or relatives of the deceased. That’s why it’s functionally self-published. There’s no evidence or guarantee of the independent editorial evaluation of a publishing house. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For this source, which has some coverage but is still regarded as dubious, see this discussion. Garuda ^Talk! 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : The fort was captured and lost multiple times, should not have a specific page. Can be redirected to Deccani–Vijayanagar wars#Qutb Shahi-Vijayanagara conflicts. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [8]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undetectable.ai

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, no WP:CORPDEPTH upon closer inspection, it is clearly a WP:FAILCORP

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the nominator here is User:Moondust534.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernight Games

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NWEB. Secondary sources in the article are MPOGD (listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and OMGN (2 refs: [9], [10]) both are very brief news stories (the other made longer by copypasting developer forum post). Audiogames.net article seems to contain a press release for Monarchy, one of Evernight's games, so it counts as a primary source. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpena Power Company

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

Does not pass WP:GNG single source indicates WP:PROMO Czarking0 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Czarking0 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has existed for 18 years with no independent sourcing. There have been several editors, but no one added any sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Bustamante

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Spain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the nom knows, WP:NSPORTS is not relevant. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC is what matters. 1, 2, 3, 4. JTtheOG (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided in this discussion appear to have enough coverage for the WP:GNG to be met. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Line (radio)

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Can find no reviews or Google News hits about show itself, just mentions. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor Trading

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

Somewhat promotional article about an East Timorese company that fails WP:GNG. Ref. 1 doesn't mention East Timor Trading Group, Ref. 2 reads like sponsored content and is possibly an interview, and Ref. 3 is primary. Most of the article is promotional and about its founder, not ETT Group. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Asia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The True Story of the Novel

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

There is no need for this stub as one already exists for the author. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Something went wrong with this nomination, because there is no notice on the article itself. That said,~~ Keep per WP:NBOOK. The book is clearly notable, with reviews in six journals. Hopefully someday someone will expand it (synopsis, and summaries of the reviews), but being a stub is not grounds for deletion. (Even if the book were not notable, a reasonable alternative to deletion would have been to redirect it to the author's page.) (the bot fixed the nomination errors, and I've notified the article creator) Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough reviews, and as mentioned above, being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six high quality sourced reviews show that this book passes the notability criteria for GNG and NBOOK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur Alavi

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

Fails notability, I checked the refs, two of them are completely fake. and in other 3 he is just mentioned as the assistant coach of the national team and/or the para-table tennis junior team coach. that's far from being notable. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Alavi

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

Fails notability, this is just one line of article and then throwing lots of not-really-related references to trick wikipedia. for example one of the sources is about District 8 Championships! (and not even the national youth championship) Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennis. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump.fun

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 9#Pump.fun, while apparently G4 didn't apply there still seemed to be agreement that the recreation deserved a new discussion at AfD rather than slipping quietly into acceptance. So here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the page should not be deleted, especially after the amount of coverage from notable sources this month regarding the conduct of the platform's users. I've improved the page with some small edits to fix some issues that I have with it, and I'll work on finding more sources and expanding the article tomorrow.

LemurianPatriot (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goidhoo School

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

Not notable Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Home

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

This subject has no significant coverage. My BEFORE yielded nothing barring WP:GAMEGUIDE content and WP:ROUTINE news coverage of updates, as well as trivial mentions of the app's connectivity with Sword and Shield. This subject has no actual reviews or pieces of commentary that would indicate this to be independently notable. All citations in the article, barring GAMEGUIDE content, are PRIMARY sources. This article is better off redirected to List of Pokémon video games, where the subject is listed in-depth already and is listed in the context of other games in the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient amounts of critical commentary besides this I found. Still not enough, IMO, to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same - I had a look and couldn't find much commentary on the game beyond the TheGamer article. The list of games does seem to be the place for it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hen'badhoo School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the '70s: Volume 2

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

Was correctly BLARed with the edit summary this is trivia, and the only reference is one for the general series, apparently used for other installments also. Then contested several times with no substantive argument, so here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: It's what the page has previously turned into, and it seems to be a given. Not sure why one of the edit reasons claimed that turning a barely source page into a redirect without discussion is bad just because the page has been around for a while, it seems pretty common to me. --Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addi (Tigrinya term)

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

Per WP:NOTDICT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article literally copies off one source to present the information, and this is usually only a headline superlative rather than something really followed closely. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NLIST. [11][12][13][14][15] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a copy of a single source, and is arbitrarily cut off at "all teams but four". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend's merge proposal also sounds very reasonable to me, so I'd be cool with either. No opinion on how much the list should be trimmed if we ultimately go with merge. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if renamed List of NFL quarterbacks who have beaten every team in the league and trimmed. (Also remove the criterion "beaten every team he faced at least once", which is just made up.) It satisfies NLIST, but only for every team, not every team but n (n=1, 2, 3, etc.). This is a rare achievement which requires a QB to go to another team and then beat his former team. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins, but just the half dozen QBs who have done it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd support a trim and merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe the list should be trimmed to just those six players. The sources discuss a lot more players than just those six. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to trim list, it should include the six who beat all teams plus the qbs who stayed with one team throughout their career and beat all other teams (Bradshaw, Elway, ect.) Spparky (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources that support this addition? I don't see any. (The closest I can find is that Mahomes is the youngest to beat all 31 other teams, and that's a different kettle of fish.) Otherwise, this is just an unwarranted stretching of the boundary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins. Specifically, I would add a bullet for those retired QBs who have beaten all but one team if they spent their entire career with one team. This would remove Ken Stabler, Alex Smith and Kerry Collins because they played for multiple teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry Collins is listed in three of the sources above though. Here is an excerpt: "Oddly, one other quarterback, Kerry Collins, beat 31 teams, but the team Collins never beat, the Dolphins, wasn’t one of the teams he played for. Collins actually started against the Dolphins four times while playing for four different teams, but lost all four games." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more notable that a QB spent their entire career with one team and beat every other team in the league (31/31) than being traded and still not beating every team in the league (31/32). Collins wouldn't be on the list of "all but one" if he had never been traded since he never beat the Dolphins. In the end, that will be a decision to be made by the closing administrator. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it more WP:interesting, but that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Sources! Where are your sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources were the only criterion, then we would have hundreds of times more articles than we do now. I was featured in my hometown newspapers covering my Eagle Scout project, so should I have a Wikipedia article? The answer is no, because I do not meet WP:GNG despite the fact I can provide sources. At what point do we stop adding names to these lists? Your argument, to me, seems more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT than putting forward any policy-based or guideline-based argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your example, an article in a local paper about a local person/event, does not qualifiy as a Wikipedial source. You are confusing verifiability with notability. [Pet peeve alert: Why do you and others keep typing "::*:", "*::", etc., when the asterisk does nothing unless it is at the end?] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: You asked about my sources, so I provided a hypothetical to show that I can find sources for someone not notable (I specifically said I do not meet GNG). In reference to the pet peeve, I'm not typing the colons and asterisks. That is Wikipedia's "Reply" function probably just adding a colon to the end of whatever indenting text already exists. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports writers have written about QBs with wins against all teams as a group (I'm stretching just to include the two who beat the 28 then-existing teams), as demonstrated by WikiOriginal-9. None have written about all but one, with or without weird qualifiers/conditions, as a group (sorry, Collins). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has enough discussion in secondary sources to allow us to have an article on it. The issues above all seem like editing issues, not notability issues. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Clarityfiend. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTSTATS. Excessive niche statscruft sourced by a single outlet. Ajf773 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing currently in the article is an editing issue, there are plenty of different sources above. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four of five of WikiOriginal-9's sources above discuss these "32-win" QBs as a group, so NLIST is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is only one source currently in the article, and it's a database website, but this is clearly notable. The editing just needs to be cleaned up. Other sources include [16] [17] SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The souces provided in this discussion, particularly the CBS Sports, NBC Sports, and Sporting News articles each cover the list as a grouping for WP:NLIST to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strongest arguments thus far are for a merger or a trimmed version, but I'm simply not seeing consensus on any of the options. Given the specific options proposed, it would be useful for future !voters to engage with them specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't think "Quarterback beat all teams but three" (or four) merits mention in an encyclopedia at all. I would merge everything above two into quarterback records. However, given the size of List of NFL individual records, and the key role played by quarterbacks in the game, I would split out a separate List of NFL quarterback records. BD2412 T 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an arbitrary cutoff not supported by the sportswriters. Guys who are at 31 are mentioned, if at all, merely in passing and not as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon volumes

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

INDISCRIMINATE list of volumes from a variety of non-notable manga series, with their only similarity being that they're related to Pokémon. List of chapter information with no context as to why this split is notable nor necessary, and has no reason to exist separately from any other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Sub Aqua Club

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

Fails WP:ORG. 16 of the 20 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turaiha

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

Article already exists --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turahiya Quantum^Realm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 18:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XHTOL-FM

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

Does not meet GNG, only source is the Mexican equivlent of the FCC. Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC) 17:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have been working on, but unable to handle due to other pressures, a plan that would likely cull hundreds of Mexican radio station pages. Sourcing of the kind needed to pass increased GNG pressures is just too low. The ATD will be a state list redirect, in this case List of radio stations in the State of Mexico. Earlier this year, I added the remaining state lists we did not previously have. As proof that this has been on my mind for more than six months, User:Sammi Brie/Mexico radio culling. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are other articles you wish to add from your "cull" list, now is the time. Unfortunately, just because of "other pressures" (which I do sympathize with) exist, doesn't give this or other articles that don't meet GNG a reprieve. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Fleischer (judge)

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

The subject of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[18]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[19]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Atlanta Black Star article links to an earlier article about another case of Fleischer's on a similar theme, so it would seem to me that the "single event" clause of BLP1E isn't met. Note that the one that was linked by Oblivy isn't referenced in the wiki page, whereas the one I just linked is. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Xxc3nsoredxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that at least some channels go beyond simply reposting. They provide an avenue for discussing specific cases/outcomes, (light) editorializing by giving a brief summary of what they think are specific points of interest, as well as commentary on how they think he's growing as a professional and where he might be falling short. I would consider it a point towards notability that others take the time to analyze his character. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I've had a look at the sourcing of the article and think I have a pretty good idea of what is out there and I don't think it meets standards for notability. There are some YouTube videos, the ABC video, and some niche and local media talking about him. Meanwhile his article makes him look like boring local judge but but at the moment his fame seems to be as a streamer. He may easily pass our standards soon enough, if he gets some quality news stories about him, in which case it could go back to article space in preferably through new page creation. Oblivy (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is an extremely popular judge, there have been many stories on him in media. He is covered in many channels on Youtube and other social media. His content is widely shared and followed. The article needs to be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wordsworth1990 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) — Wordsworth1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Being popular on YouTube does not contribute to notability, nor does being mentioned in other YouTube videos. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just overhauled the page, and I think as it stands currently, it meets notability. There are plenty of secondary sources (ABC, Houston Chronicle, Bolt, Houston Public Media), and I think they all contribute to notability. Plus, I removed some of the not-great sources and replaced them with more reputable ones. I also think his online virality should be 1 of many factors that add to his notability. Some people did not like the ABC News video as a source, but plenty of Wikipedia pages use videos as sources. I think a national news organization interviewing the person is a viable source. Plus, what was used was limited to what the ABC News host said. I think before the updates, the page should have stayed, but after the update, I still think it should stay and address concerns of people who voted to delete. Bpuddin (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments of the keeper !voters are not holding waters yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand how the Keep votes are not "holding water." Plenty of secondary sources have been added to the page, and a profile of Fleischer from the Houston Chronicle published recently (and added to the page) shows notability. This is in addition to the ABC News interview and other sources highlighting Fleischer. If anything, the Delete people's arguments are not holding water when they say he only has one notable thing about him (his viral videos). If you look at the updated page, there is more than just his viral videos; there are his elections and the fact that he helped push for bail reform in Houston, which was part of an attack during his following election. At this point, the extension of the comment period is unnecessary since there was previously a consensus to keep his page. The people who vote to delete the page should have better arguments to show why the current page should be deleted.Bpuddin (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Shakhawat

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

Fails to fulfill WP:NPOL and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Adhiguna

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Economics, Technology, Asia, and Indonesia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Twenty20

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for any of these articles; all of them fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Caribbean. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominated the season articles. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Major T20 domestic competition of an ICC Full Member. AA (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per AA. St Anselm (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are no policy-based opinions. Discussion should focus on whether good sources are available (WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jaffe

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, diplomats are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work in media and books. But this is "referenced" solely to a staff profile on the self-published website of a publication that the subject was the bylined author (not the subject) of a couple of pieces of writing for and a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a short blurb announcing the appointment of 16 new ambassadors -- meaning that the first is a directly affiliate primary source that isn't support for notability at all, while the second isn't detailed enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all the secondary sourcing she's got: we need to see substantive coverage about her work in diplomatic roles, not just cursory verification of the fact that she's been appointed to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Raja Karnan

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

Non-notable businessman, inventor and entrepreneur. The ANI piece is advertorial article, as it is written at the end see this [20]. Non of the sources are reliable. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Tamil Nadu. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Rutherford High School (North Carolina)

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

Article about a school, not properly referenced as passing WP:NSCHOOL. As always, schools are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass WP:ORG and WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is "referenced" solely to the school's own self-published website about itself, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about it in independent third-party sources (media, books, etc.) shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability of this association and no public information about it. Closest thing available was the "Association of Civil Engineers Maldives" Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the closest thing to a RS I could find [21], which isn't enough. The last AfD was kept as a !keep due to mentions/profiles on two association websites, which isn't quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Women's T20 Cup

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

~~Not enough coverage for a separate season article; should be merged back to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)~~ — Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for both articles; both fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Shrug02 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sorted in Television-related AfDs? I don't think this is a TV production. -Mushy Yank. 12:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the first and noted film of a notable director (https://nfi.hu/en/core-films-1/films-3/documentaries-1/58-seconds.html) (see NFIC: involves a notable person and is a major part of their career) A Redirect to Lívia Gyarmathy#Filmography, a standard alternative to deletion when the director is notable and has a page on this WP, seems warranted anyway [edited after having improved the page]. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith

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

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found a few non-trivial newspaper articles that aren't just about her link to Brosnan. The second one mentions their relationship but it's more about her and her own career work. 1, 2. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article is not fully referenced there are four sources with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Two were noted by GoldenAgeFan1 and I found two others. While all but one mention Pierce Brosnan they are primarily about the subject. All are now in the article but were not before the AfD discussion. There may be more sources but it's difficult to find those that might be primarily about the subject given all the articles about the Brosnans as a couple. Nnev66 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novakovich, Lilana (August 21, 1989). "Food therapy for GH's Valerie". The Toronto Star – via newspapers.com.
Slewinski, Christy (December 29, 1995). "Keely Shaye Smith turns her green thumb to gold". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 291082310 – via newspapers.com.
Fabian, Allison (January 1999). "Keely Shaye Smith putting her passion to work". New Woman. Vol. 29, no. 1. New York: Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. p. 13. ProQuest 206658619.
Tschinkel, Arielle (August 5, 2024). "Who Is Pierce Brosnan's Wife? All About Keely Shaye Brosnan". People (magazine).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad (app)

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

The app seems to have no notability and what appears to be a bogus link to another company, with no reliable sources confirming it. The sources provided with mentions of the Nomad app appear to be promotional in nature and therefore I believe that this article should be deleted. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Nyxion303 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kept five weeks ago, with very few delete opinions. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects, all news is from over a month ago at this point. The media cycle has moved on it seems. Two deaths is rather routine and nothing out of the ordinary, even in a regular traffic accident. This isn't the Yonge Street attack in Toronto where a dozen people got caught... Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no coverage after the first week. LASTING and NOTNEWS definitely apply. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally prefer the first target (also any merge should be very cut down). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I was thinking of the human toll (a death and 30-40 injuries), but on second thought maybe impact is a gray area. I think ultimately since WP:N(E) has no hard requirements, we have to consider multiple factors, but the WP:DIVERSE factor certainly supports inclusion. I also just feel that when coverage is so extensive, the WP:GNG presumption should carry weight, leading us to default to inclusion unless there's a particularly strong argument for why it would fail WP:N(E). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may be WP:DIVERSE sources, no sources extend past a few days after the event. This attack has no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And while I understand that I should WP:FOC with this, I think it's important to note that the article creator wrote the page while the news was still WP:BREAKING, and has been PBlocked for these creations, something which should be relevant here as the article was created regardless of the event's impact. E_F⁵ 17:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the burst of coverage immediately after (the guideline's language), there was still significant coverage days after the event, like [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Most of that was 2-3 days after, though the last was Dec 2.

I wouldn't say WP:PERSISTENCE particularly favors inclusion, but this doesn't exactly fail the standard either. In any case it's only one factor, not a requirement, while other factors like WP:DIVERSE favor inclusion.

I don't think the author's motivations should be considered, particularly since that was a while ago and this already survived one AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stay is a fact with significant coverage and great impact on Israeli society that is going through moments of fight against terrorism. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@190.219.101.225: Can I get a few examples of significant and lasting coverage, and that this event had long-lasting, if any, impacts on Israeli society? E_F⁵ 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the prior AFD was just held last month. It's pretty soon for a return trip to AFDLand. But I'm relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has significant coverage and is notable. Should be kept. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask this again, where is the significant coverage here? I see 5 sources, all of which were published right after the attack. E_F⁵ 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be in the current article to contribute to notability though. I listed more above, including 7 which were not immediately after the attack. Would you be convinced by a much longer list (including ones immediately after)? I'm happy to compile one if it would be useful. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 days after an event is normal. There is zero WP:LASTING coverage. E_F⁵ 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this attack has left fourty (!) people injured and has a good sources. It definitely fulfills the criteria for GNG and thus it should be kept. Karol739 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the coverage provided is run of the fill news reports. No secondary sources have been identified. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate further? News reports are normally secondary sources (unless the topic is the news org or what not). Are you saying you'd like to see non-news sources like books or papers? It seems too early for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are normally secondary sources This is incorrect. You're confusing secondary with independent. It seems too early for that. This is correct. That's why the article is up for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't as per the link provided by Alien. I'd like to see secondary sources.

> It seems too early for that.

Then this article should not exist until it can meet the criteria for GNG, which requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no WP:LASTING coverage. Would make sense maybe as a section in another article – this one maybe? – but we don't have an article for every single thing that happens, even if those things do get news coverage. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no long lasting effects and not significantly covered Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not count toward notability. Death count is irrelevant, and citing it indicates that one still needs more time to learn how notability works on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seconding/per xDanielx. Regardless; Also am uncomfortable with the amount of time passed since the last AfD; This discussion should be procedurally closed as per WP:6MONTHS.MWFwiki (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay not a policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tell me where I said it was, I would greatly appreciate it! It is still a good guideline, and it exists for a reason; whenever someone points-out “it’s just an essay,” I encourage them to nominate it for deletion if they feel it has no value; regardless, re-listing after less than a month is wildly inappropriate, IMO. I should also point-out that WP:BEFORE explicitly links to this essay. MWFwiki (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree, Indiana

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

Baker actually describes this as a post office spot which moved, which is a classic 4th class PO thing. No, it doesn't mean that everyone pulled up stakes and moved; it just means that the original postmaster stopped handling the mail, and someone somewhere else took over. As usual I'm finding scant evidence for an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

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

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIMUN clearly passes CNG, it is a clearly prominent organisation with enough credibility on the internet. Rjain1998 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)
~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: because it is promotional and lacks credible, verifiable citations. Charlie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)

~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep:: This organisation has articles from sources such as forbes and vogue, DNA, Times of India so should keep Rjain1998 (talk)

Rjain1998 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been found to be turning a redirected page into a page about IIMUN's founder, potentially indicating a case of article hijacking. Charlie (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An under-referenced article on a VC firm, simply listing the people involved. The current version makes no claim to notability, nor would the lists of past investments in prior instances. The sources at the 2008 AfD would now fall under the "standard notices" provision at WP:CORPTRIV, and searches are not finding more substantial coverage, whether as Noventi Ventures or CIR Ventures. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Share Insurance

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

Actually not meeting NCORP; I did we before however it did not help. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Insurance

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

I did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Universe 2015

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Furthermore, this Teen Universe competition does not have its own standalone article, suggesting limited notability for the event series as a whole. - The9Man ^Talk 08:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG, the fact that no other article for this event except this one raises some eyebrows. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No significant coverage and the existing references are mostly Facebook posts.

Shrug02 (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Express Media Group

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

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY (if it still exists). I've just fixed about half a dozen incoming links intended for the Pakistani organisation of the same name. I suggest moving the Pakistani org to this name, and creating a redirect from Express Media Group (Australia) to the 4WD article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just discovered that Express Media Group (Pakistan) is actually just a redirect, not an article. So I suggest just making Express Media Group a redirect to the same article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakol Over Habibi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Source search only shows unreliable sources or brief mentions in reliable sources, and is only notable for their appearance in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1981 (going off the article and sources) and have almost no coverage besides that, can't find anything related to the alleged albums in the article.

Not to mention it's a BLP without any references or external links, which makes it eligible for BLP PRODing. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 08:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDFC securities

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arri PL

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

Article created from redirect is completely unreferenced with no notability argument. Although a quick Wikipedia search for "Arri PL" yields 60 hits, these are passing mentions at best. Does not meet WP:GNG and at this rate is a lot of unverifiable original research. Violates WP:OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge all mounts (this one, Arri standard, Arri bayonet) info Arri. I have found one for all three (see Arri standard#Sources), but it is clearly not large enough to support any of the articles, much less all three of them - but should be enough for a single section, "Mounts". Викидим (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

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

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish that fraud and misprision, my two least favorite crimes, were crimes that would automatically make a perpetrator notable, but that has not been consensus since 2007. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Wikipedia for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article gained full notoriety, as it is an important case with a properly licensed work. It is not a template. It appears to comply with WP:GNG. so keep. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:BOLD strikeout as a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about him in reliable sources like Bloomberg, Newsweek, Miami Herald, NJ and National Law Review.Kwftnlf (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Firecat93 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th SAARC summit

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

Not notable enough for a separate article, can be redirected to List of SAARC summits. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article lacks WP:RS and WP:IS to meet the WP:V. The current status of the organisation is unclear and largely speculative, given the absence of summits since 2014 and the cancellation of the 2016 summit and subsequent meetings. QEnigma talk 16:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbiakzuala

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Some appearances in India's second league. Found no significant and independent coverage, though his name might be written in a number of different ways. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. CptViraj (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 Blues

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

Not notable. Only notable thing on the article to me was "world's first hotel residences offered for sale by the government of the Maldives." which is far-fetched to me. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique house names in Maldives

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

No references since 2016, not notable. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - on the one hand, I don't like the title or the unencyclopedic tone WP:NOTESSAY of the writing. On the other hand, this does appear to be a Thing. It might be a challenge to find notable sources, but it does depend if we collectively think it is worth doing here or better to WP:TNT and get whoever recreates it to ensure there is proper sourcing. I'm doubting it is really possible for anyone outside of the Maldives to offer sources that meet the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, I couldn't find any reliable sources for this in the Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 20:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you say, it does seem to be a Thing, and thus notable. As a comment, it used to be very common in the UK for house names to be the only addresses on envelopes. For example, my grandmother's address used to be just Catalone, Newton Abbot, South Devon. However, for obvious reasons the Post Office tried to eradicate this approach to addresses, and it has largely disappeared, except for people who live in castles or palaces. I expect the same practice existed in other countries, and probably still does in some. Athel cb (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. The requirement of the GNG is coverage in reliable sources. Even if houses were named in England, that doesn't mean that a list of house names in England would be notable. Even if it was, that doesn't mean house names in another country are also notable. JMWt (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency (party politics)

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and, as a disambiguation page, WP:PARTIAL. Geschichte (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tendencies have an important role for Trotskyites in particular that goes beyond dictionary definitions. If there are ways to improve the article so that it stops meeting WP:DICDEF then let me know. JASpencer (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the entry now consists of exactly one sentence and no sources. Multiple paragraphs with multiple sources, that's no longer a dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hocquaux

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Derby (Serbia)

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

Fails GNG. C F A 01:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Leuenberger

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This skater's career does not justify a Wikipedia article. Also lacks significant coverage with what coverage there is consisting mostly of result lists.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all the season articles to Bulgarian Figure Skating Championships. All the relevant information, ie the medalists, is contained within the parent article. For an event with such patchy participation, it is wholly unnecessary to have separate season articles.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional monarchy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Traditional monarchy (2nd nomination)

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

Traditional monarchy, as a distinct system of governance, ideology or political affiliation is not widely used enough to be considered WP:NOTE. There was obviously a lot of work put into this article, and I can sympathise with how awful it must feel to see it nominated for deletion. However, this topic has a lot of redundancy and little notability as a distinct subject.

A lot of the alleged traditional monarchists in this article never use the label. Charles A. Coulombe has 0 mentions outside of Wikipedia of being a traditional monarchist. Coulombe is both a traditionalist and a monarchist, but he never uses the term traditional monarchist. Even Rafael Gambra Ciudad, who has the most extensive mentions of Monarquía tradicional, has zero sources describing him as a traditional monarchist (that I can find). Several of the quotes throughout this article discuss monarchism but do not mention traditionalism. The label of a traditional monarchist is also frequently applied to movements that do not describe themselves as traditional monarchists. A lot of the connections to traditional monarchism seem to be made by the editor, rather than the sources.

A brief survey of the academia on traditional monarchy shows that it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is not described as a distinct ideology from traditionalism or monarchism but a combination of both. This leads to many of the sources used by this article not mentioning the term traditional monarchy.

I am aware that this article relies on a lot of Spanish sources, something I'm by no means fluent in, so I could have totally missed something big. However, even with Google Translate and searching basic Spanish terms, almost nothing comes up.

At the end of the day, this article reads more like an article about monarchism and would have substantially fewer issues if it were.}} Clubspike2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Wikipedia), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.

Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)

Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]