Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 11	November 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 03:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have been asked to expand upon my rationale. A substantial number of participants in the discussion are satisfied that the sources provided are sufficient to show that this is a sufficiently notable junction to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. For this purpose, I have given little weight to the low-participation IP (as is standard practice in such discussions). Based on the level of participation in this discussion, which is high relative to AfDs being listed recently, there is no reason to believe that relisting would yield any different of an outcome. BD2412 T 01:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southcote Junction

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

Doesn't appear to be notable in its own right for anything in particular. Of the references, there are some maps (hardly extensive coverage), some rail history books (again, hardly comprehensive for notability), and a passing mention about NR doing some route upgrades or something. Not familiar with the books listed, so cannot pass judgement there. But what makes this particular rail junction notable in its own right? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 23:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 23:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coley branch line which diverged at this junction. I noticed the page author dumped a bunch of references into the article (and I don't use the word dumped lightly, take a look at how the second paragraph has 6 citations at the end). The second paragraph basically says nothing about the junction besides "it existed". Paragraph 3 is cited to a map and to a personal website with no indication of reliability. Paragraph 4 is also "it exists" and cites a map and the same personal website. I'm struggling to find any real discussion or coverage of the junction itself. Multiple instances of books cited with no page numbers are a further issue for verifiability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings and Bearian: The problem with that is that the Coley branch didn't diverge at Southcote Junction but at Coley Branch Junction, about 9 chains (200 yd; 180 m) closer to Reading West. Southcote Junction is where the two routes of the former Berks and Hants Railway diverge from each other, one to Hungerford (the "Berks" part of the railway) and the other to Basingstoke (the "Hants" part of the railway), as they still do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly open to supporting a better redirect or merge target, but it isn't sufficient to keep something solely because there's no good redirect/merge target. That being said, the article currently reads A second adjacent junction, the Coley Branch Junction, formerly existed a few metres to the north where the Coley branch line diverged. Is what's in the article right now inaccurate and need correction? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: You do appreciate, I hope, that denoting notability is not the only (or even the main) reason for citations. Their principal purpose is to give evidence to the accuracy of the information in the article. That is why this article has the cites it has, and I'm afraid, if that means you have to read some only to discover their only purpose is to substantiate a word or two in the article, that is just the way it is. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Unless you are counting paragraphs different to me, I completely fail to understand your comment The second paragraph basically says nothing about the junction besides "it existed". Paragraph 2 gives the early railway history of the junction, including the dates both legs opened, the promoting company and the relation to the nearby Coley Branch. That is a whole lot more than "it existed". -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to keep pinging me, this is on my watchlist and I will respond to any further replies as needed. I'm not doubting the junction exists, what I'm struggling with is seeing sources that contribute to GNG. I do understand that citations are for far more than just notability, but notability is what is being discussed here. To those who are arguing for a keep, please point me to a few sources that give significant coverage of this junction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coley branch line as suggested. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability standards and is a useful article. What makes it notable are the references to it, mostly those in the books, and its geospatial significance, in both the railway geography of South-East England and the local geography of Reading. A redirection to the Coley Branch Line would be plain wrong (as Redrose64 points about above) and almost as bad as the previous attempt to get rid of this article by redirecting it to a station 2km away. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete No reliable sources with substantive coverage, just blog pieces. Or redirect to Coley Branch Line 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:E537:99DE:F92:794C (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:E537:99DE:F92:794C: Hi, but could you identify yourself please, as all I can see here is an IPV6 address with 7 edits, all within a 12 minute period today. I'd also be interested in why you think that Gordon Biddle and O S Nock's The Railway Heritage of Britain is a blog piece. Many thanks. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can be dynamically reassigned. Please don't automatically assume bad faith based solely on someone editing from an IP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are additional sources that should be added to the article, for example The Railway Times, 1908 and The Railway Age, 1907 and Railway News, 1905. These show the importance of the junction, especially when it was built. Taken with the existing sources, I think this article does meet WP:GNG, though only just. Opolito (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all three sources. The first is about a new goods depot in Redding and the second is a mention of the Coley Branch. Both are one sentence mentions. I cannot even find the words "Southcote Junction" in the third. How exactly do these show importance? You understand that WP:SIGCOV expects more than one sentence mentions, right? I would expect something important could have at least an entire paragraph dedicated to it in a source, if not entire articles. If these sources are the best you can find, I think that's just more evidence the junction does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's capable of expansion - I just added more text and another ref. If it must be redirected, the best place is to Berks and Hants Railway, since the junction is part of that line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All the independent sources I could access contained only brief mentions of the junction, nothing close to SIGCOV. I can't see the Vic Mitchell book but if the only "coverage" is the cited figure then that's very unlikely to count toward GNG either. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Mitchell & Smith books don't have page numbers. Most of the text in the book pertains to one or another of the illustrations (photos and maps), so they are generally cited by figure number. As it happens, Southcote Junction is covered by two pages in that book, plus more in "Country Railway Routes: Reading to Basingstoke" by the same authors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how much text is that? Even if it's significant, that's still only a single source (including both books). JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
27 lines of text, 3 photos and a map. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read Opolito's response with the additional sources I believe it will be worthwhile using them to expand the article further. As it stands it's a useful article that adequately shows the notability of the junction both in the past and now. As for redirect, which I hope doesn't happen, then I'm with Redrose64's redirect suggestion - it's nothing to do with the Coley Branch Line. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources say anything about the junction, they are one sentence mentions. Did you read the linked sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect for now, without prejudice to re-creating if more sources turn up. It seems we have a lot of mentions but little detail, which is not "significant coverage". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search of railway books shows there's enough coverage to clear WP:GNG (there are several books which go into various amounts of detail about this junction - many are mere mentions but several sources describe the junction over a period of more than a century, including at least one accident.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a quick search of railway books shows there's enough coverage to clear WP:GNG Can we see these books, please? If you don't give any details how are others supposed to respond to this new information? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Search on Google. It's obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright genius, you do realize people in different countries will see different results? If you are outside the U.S., I may not be able to see what you see. I am persuadable here but not if you stonewall me when I try to engage in good faith. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree that there is WP:SIGCOV in just looking through the first four pages of a standard search in google books. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed, or if it was, not competently.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistance Resource Teacher

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as last AfD was no consensus. No significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian database Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the offline sources in the article and the additional materials provided in the first AFD, there is some significant coverage in this journal article: [1]. I'm also seeing a bunch of Australian education journals and magazines covering the topic in 1980s publications in google books, but they are only available in snippet view. From what I have been able to find, this seems like it was a major education initiative in the 1980s in Australia with a thousand teaching positions created under this title and an associated training program in order to work in that position. Seems like a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this overlaps too substantially with Special Assistance Program (Australian education) to have two separate articles; both talk about the program and teacher roles/trainings in the program. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The issue is the article does not present a worldwide view. – The Grid (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if @The Grid is thinking about a teacher who teaches kids who are struggling in school (every place has its own name for this job), rather than a single, specific program in a single, specific place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article would benefit from additional references. Rockycape (t • c •g)
- Just so you know, this article already cites 11 sources, which is more than 80% of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is notable to the history of Education in the state of Victoria. But maybe the creator of the article should be included? If anyone would know the proper significance of the article it would be him and he would give a unique perspective to the consensus. He is still active, with his last edit being on 11 November 2024. I think consensus should be postponed until his perspective is added to the consensus. I have reached out to him via his talk page [2]. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just letting you all know he has since responded, his response is copied below for reference, but can be seen via his talk page [3]:

"This article is addressing the most significant issue in primary education in the western world during the 20th and 21st centuries. An issue that remains unresolved globally. It provides evidence that a resolution to the problem it addresses was developed and successfully implemented by a western government but insufficiently replicated throughout the western world for the problem to be successfully addressed world wide."

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Two relistings have not generated any further discussion. Clearly the consensus is to remove the article even if respondents are divided between delete, redirect, and merge. Let's go with the least destructive option. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Malaysia, London

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

Article based on a primary source and directory listing. No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Diplomatic premises are rarely individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London where it is mentioned, as has been done for every other non-notable embassy and high commission in London brought to AfD or PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malaysia–United Kingdom relations. @Thryduulf the embassy is also on the List of diplomatic missions of Malaysia. I think we could actually save all the content on the relations page as a merge target which would be better than redirecting to one of several possible list pages. 4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Malaysia–Netherlands relations#Diplomacy. ✗plicit 02:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Malaysia, The Hague

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

Based on primary sources. A google news search only yields the primary source of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Malaysia, and Netherlands. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malaysia–Netherlands relations#Diplomacy per WP:ATD. The Embassy would reasonably be covered in that article.4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, the usual solution for articles on non-notable embassies. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Tate

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

I'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Illinois, and Texas. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. I am not clear why the nominator mentioned notability not being inherited here as there is no indication that Tate is related to anyone on Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christie Tate meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR) through multiple lines of evidence:
1. Significant book success:
- "Group" was a New York Times bestseller
- Selected for Reese Witherspoon's Book Club, a major cultural platform
- Translated into 19 languages, showing international impact
- Received significant reviews in major publications (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
1. Multiple published works:
- Two traditionally published books ("Group" and "B.F.F.")
- Essays in major national publications (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
- Winner of the New Ohio Review's 2019 nonfiction contest
1. Sustained media coverage:
- Featured profiles independent of book promotion
- Coverage in Harvard Crimson
- Significant coverage in Chicago Tribune beyond book reviews
- Subject of broader cultural discussions about memoir writing and privacy
1. Professional recognition:
- Her work has sparked discussions about memoir ethics and privacy in mainstream media
- Significant impact in the memoir genre, particularly regarding mental health and therapy
- Regular contributor to major national publications
These factors demonstrate sustained, independent coverage beyond mere publicity for her books, meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Her impact on contemporary memoir writing and mental health discourse provides clear evidence of lasting cultural significance.

Note: The "notability is not inherited" comment seems misplaced as Tate's notability stands on her own merits as an author and public figure. Joeyghostman (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies criteria for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Marcocanol (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple works; I don't think notability is not inherited applies to works in cases of authors or other creative types. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:NAUTHOR. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 10:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Parsons (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV in Google News (some of the links are for other people with the same name) and no significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Darbyshire

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News shows only name mentions, no WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. No significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lovett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News only turns out one article with WP:SIGCOV (that calls him a "rookie"), rest of the Google News articles are just name mentions. Does not appear to have any significant success. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 2 primary sources. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Willard

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable achievements, no significant coverage. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Stephen

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on Google News. Appears to have no significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Balfour, Countess of Balfour

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

There is no indication of notability in the article nor have I been successful in attempts to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. This entry appears to be entirely genealogical. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk (her father) per WP:ATD (not an implausible search term). Ingratis (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life as above. Her father is a better target than her husband as her husband doesn't appear to be notable either. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found quite a bit about the husband, including his interesting idea on how his daughter might inherit his title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life per DrKay and Ingratis. Should her husband prove to be notable in the future it should be redirected there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelbis

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

The only online source for this custom is a WordPress blog that published a piece on this one month before the Wikipedia page was created. I cannot find any other sources for this custom. Tooncool64 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. Could find no source that would indicate the article is justified.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This also appears to be a name and a location... I can't find anything about a wedding ceremony. Unsourced article that doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Had previously tried to find this via google and the Somali wiki, and failed completely as well. Coeusin (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete': not WP:N. Headhitter (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - and WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (admins please relist) to Wedding customs by country#Somalia per WP:ATD. There isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV but this is a real thing. See the newly added cited book reference in the article which was published by ABC Clio. You can also see videos of this custom on YouTube and pinterest. It's not WP:MADEUP, and there is good merge target. @Bearian, Headhitter, Tooncool64, Oaktree b, Coeusin, Suonii180 what do you all think of this WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of new sources brought up after most comments were made in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to a cookbook, I don't consider that any sort of acceptable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. Coeusin (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This poorly sourced article does not meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW closing this; nominated for deletion 8 minutes after creation, electoral districts at state/federal/national level broadly considered notable as a corollary of WP:NPOL. Lack of references does not automatically equal a lack of notability (nb WP:NEXIST). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liegnitz (electoral district)

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

Completely unreferenced article.–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, I will add references and further sources to this and the other seven articles, as well as future ones in this series. Erinthecute (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs added and electoral districts are routinely kept at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Soul Solution. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheleen Thomas

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

Too short article and also cited content doesn't enlighten the subject as a significant coverage.–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this singer, brief association with a song then seems to have faded away. Even the sourcing now in the article is slim... Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Solution, So Pure!'s other name, the band who had the charting single she performed on. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to her band, which is a very common alternative to deleting. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Solution per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercurymen (Canadian band)

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

Non-notable Canadian rock band. GamerPro64 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. GamerPro64 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low/no participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found about this group; charting on college radio stations isn't a sign of notability. They don't appear to have won any awards or much of anything else we'd look at for musical notability. Even in .ca sources, there is nothing. Freddy Mercury is about all that comes up. Nothing to be found, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Press / VIP

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

Was unable to find any sources to this publishing house to show notability. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting this is a small press publishing "interview books featuring prominent scholars and philosophers". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low/no participation in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Francis, Indiana

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

Here GNIS and the USPS conspire to make up a "community", because the actual "community" here is the seminary itself. There is a post office, and it is in the buildings of the seminary, which sits in majestic isolation at the end of a long driveway, surrounded by a great deal of forest, as it always has been. One may decide that the facility itself is notable, but that's a different article. The fact is there's nothing town-like here, and this article should not exist. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this was originally about the seminary, but was turned into a place article on the strength of the post office presence. We've had other cases, however, of post offices in places which have no associated community. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find plenty of information about the seminary, but none of it is independent (either its own web presence or the local archdiocese), save for a few passing mentions or articles that plainly copied WP. So WP:GNG (which is the relevant standard, because this is clearly not a community in the usual sense) is not met. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy‎. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thafnine

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [4] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to Draftspace.Blethering Scot 21:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not while this discussion remains open, you don't. We have the option of draftifying it as the conclusion to this discussion, but the process has to run its course first and you can't cut it short by moving the page into draft before the discussion has been closed through the proper process. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no need for the pointy reply. The article had already been moved by the creator, to an incorrect draft space title of User:Thafnine. As this was not a username it was requested to be deleted by myself and sorted by another admin. I moved it properly to draft space as the article could not sit in a fake user space. Two admins have already been involved, which absolutely highlights the principle of AGF. Blethering Scot 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thafnine

– – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, as the creator of this article, I am wondering if I can pull this article back into my sandbox instead of it being fully deleted? I cannot find any other secondary sources or references that can help with the notability of this article, but due to this article being for the Wiki Education program that I am a part of for my college, I am wondering if I could simply pull this article back to my sandbox so that my professor can still see it and grade it as is. Sebastian-SolaceFish (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be userfied or moved to Draft space? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per good-faith request of page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no consensus. Are there any objections to userfying this article as requested by its creator, Sebastian-SolaceFish?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage in RS used in the article and none seen in Gnews or a general search. I don't see this person as meeting GNG or any notability guidelines, BLP or otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Userfy per creator's request. Sandbox drafts are not required to meet GNG or any notability guidelines and deleting would probably be a breach of policy (WP:DRAFT#Deleting drafts, WP:Deletion policy#Deletion of drafts). I'm not quite sure why this was relisted. @Oaktree b, I'm not sure if you missed the discussion above, are you sure you want to delete a userspace draft? Toadspike [Talk] 11:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can draft as needed, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note to the closer: Please review the background of the voters as meatpuppetry is common among these topic areas.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pillaging of an undefended city doesn't warrant an article and cannot be described as a "Maratha victory" (as claimed in the infobox). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and because of a prior AFD appearance, this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion. So far, I see no meatpuppets participating here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I trust their source analysis – articles like this and related sourcing are a known issue. While I haven't checked the sources myself, their reasoning is sound and there have been no objections. Hopefully this can provide the necessary quorum. Toadspike [Talk] 11:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even though 4meter4 provides the only serious "keep" arguments at the end, consensus (discounting the promo-bombing likely sock- or meatpuppets) is to delete this at least in the current TNT-worthy form. Sandstein 20:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted article WP:REFBOMBED with passing mentions and press releases of individual cities becoming international cities for peace, which don't really provide significant coverage of the organization as a whole. Even the one "publication reference" that I was able to access through The Wikipedia Library doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, for the feedback. I understand the concerns about notability and the type of references currently used. I am working to find more sources that offer comprehensive coverage of International Cities of Peace as an organization rather than passing mentions of individual cities joining the network.

I believe International Cities of Peace has demonstrated significant global impact as it has been active in hundreds of cities worldwide, promoting peace initiatives and even achieving Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’ll focus on finding additional independent, reliable sources that address this organizational reach.

Thank you again for your guidance, and I’m open to any further suggestions on how to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. WAASI TECH (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply came up as 76% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will monitor and help with this. I have read the article and find the organization has merit. Thanks to Wassi Tech and Pppery for the discussion. I will check to see if guidelines are followed. Be back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See major edit 11-03-24 and, if agreeable, remove from sorting lists. Additional suggestions/improve welcome. Vritta100 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting lists are a way of cataloging deletion discussions that are open. Open discussions (and this discussion will stay open until at least November 5, likely longer) are almost never removed from the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated three strategies for keeping this article:

1. I am researching a broader sourcing of references for the organization. To date, as noted in the Article, coverage of International Cities of Peace is included in many global media sources, including the BBC, The China Daily, the Westerly Sun, Ashland, Oregon News, Belfast Live, Irish Central, iTV, New Horizon, and many others; Publication mentions: Weifang Openings, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, International Peaceful Cities Series. What is included has value but more will be needed.

2. Will help edit the article for complete adherence to Wikipedia protocols. Suggestions are welcomed from other editors. This will, hopefully, be completed over the next week.

3. I will investigate the overall vision, mission, and goals of the organization. This NGO is in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and has representation at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva. The intent of the organization is to create value at the grassroots level. The organization is fifteen years old and has shown growth. Clarity is needed but I'm willing to put in time to make the Article meet Wikipedia standards.

This will take some time. I hope we editors can have a bit of patience before deleting because the above strategies, hopefully, will clarify and add value. Rather than delete, improve. Back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have completed in draft form more substantive, non-promotional copy and will implement with REF, etc. Still sourcing known hard copy publications but waiting on verified citations. Ready to add seven new articles from several countries, including Ghana, UK, Denmark, Togo, and United States. Going well. Wiki protocol followed in all. Other help will be welcomed, especially from potential Lexis-Nexis support. Let me know. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit and minor edit, Sunday, Nov. 3rd. Text more substantive and to the point. Citations follow Wiki guidelines. Resources include multinational news media, including Ghana, Togo, China, United States, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Publications and journals with articles and mentions included, particularly a series of books entitled "International Cities of Peace" as a result of International Cities of Peace working with UNESCO Chair of Peace Studies. In addition, impact shown with practical work in five Cities of Peace: Argentina, Denmark, Nigeria, China, and Kenya. Improved statements of vision and mission, along with organizational structure. Much research done to verify information and citations. Thanks to WASSI TECH for initiation of the page as well as Pppery for notification of problems. Will work with all editors on improvements. Please remove the Deletion notice and Deletion listing. Vritta100 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wiki:ORGCRIT, this organization meets all criteria for a notable organization: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In terms of the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, this organization contributes to a branch of knowledge (i.e. the ancient concept of "city of peace"), which has an extensive history and usage, yet minimal resources are available for understanding its significant application in modern times. The page should not be deleted. Vritta100 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vritta100 are you WAASI TECH? If so, you are evading a block. I've opened an SPI on your accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Wassi Tech. What is your concern, Liz? Vritta100 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. The media coverage cited in the article is not WP:SIGCOV of the organization; it's routine coverage of the member cities' activities through the organization's programming. Other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and/or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two of the participants here are socking but even if we discount their opinions, we only have one argument besides the nominator and this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion due to its prior appearance at AFD. So, we need some more participation here, at least not by socks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE... 1. The blocking issue has been resolved in my favor thanks to someone looking more deeply into the situation. 2. Here are the facts... Directly, yes directly, caused by International Cities of Peace (ICP) and reflected in the citations and resources on this Page: funding in the Nakivale Refugee Camp in Uganda by Aalborg, Denmark arranged by ICP; production of the first Peace Studies Journal from Nanjing, China, as well as the opening of the Weifang Peace Institute -- yes, this historic progress and others are directly the result of ICP; a mediation program in Lagos, Nigeria facilitated and provided a website by ICP; Programming development, facilitated by ICP in partnership with Mil Milenios de Paz in over 20 communities in South America; Podcasts featuring peace building in many cities, including Westerly, New Jersey; many, many more results that can be added to this Deletion discussion with a little investigation -- all directly due to ICP. The Page is not promotional but sticks to the facts. The association has made notable progress as a direct result of serving as the means and functionality for hundreds of communities. Your assessment about ICP not being notable is from "old thinking" that an association cannot put the members first. The above mentioned "not made any sort of traction" comes from an unfortunate lack of deeper understanding, perhaps due to lack of time, of the facts and mission of International Cities of Peace as an innovative background organization that respects local peace makers enough to work with them and directly facilitate their progress, allow them to take most credit, and build relationships, enabling them to continuously take actions to make their community's better. This page should NOT be deleted, or we as editors would be contributing to the fallacy of using that 2011 "grassroots" comment being applied to on-the-ground beneficial modern peace building, thereby disrespecting local people, groups and municipal governments putting in place concerted peace efforts through ICP's work. This will certainly make you upset, but I think this organization is important and making progress in its, I grant you, rather grandiose mission (which has not be put on the Page due to sticking to facts): "The mission of International Cities of Peace is to help energize a tipping force for global peace. To that end, we are creating the infrastructure of peace, community by community, to localize, democratize, and sensitize geopolitical decisions to the needs of families." Now, yes, putting that statement on the Page would be promotional! In all, ICP facilitates community-based programs and especially leadership, most of which can barely put food on the table, or avoid slaughter by roving bands, but who utilize to good effect the benefits of International Cities of Peace. That is "notability", as shown by dozens of independent resources. International Cities of Peace is definitely a different type of organization -- putting customers first as essential to its mission. What organization is making more progress in the world? You can call this an impassioned plea and disregard but the facts in the Page are presented in a manner that adheres to Wiki guidelines. NOT DELETE. Vritta100 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The UN seems to have something with the same name [5], but it doesn't appear related to the subject of this article. Sourcing is strictly primary/social medial when I search for this "thing", or the UN items. I don't see notability and a distinct lack of sourcing is an issue. And please don't use AI to generate these walls of text, they really don't help the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the last AfD mentions this as a "grassroots initiative" in 2011, and it's not made any sort of traction in the decade since, this is only proving non-notability. No further coverage has been found in RS that discuss this thing, it appears to have faded away. The article now reads as PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Pppry / Administrator: 100% consensus will not be reached though, with recent extensive editing, notability and importance of the Page by secondary sources is established. Please reconsider deletion to NO DELETION and withdraw of nomination for deletion for the FOLLOWING REASONS: Misunderstandings by editors of the association's focus on putting crediting/media citations for members front and center • An unnecessary and overturned blocking initiative and bullying of editors • Overt calls for deletion that resulted in superficial discussions and misrepresentations • A simple Google search finds over 150 articles and mentions from independent sources, some are highlighted on page, most are not due to amount from over 400 member cities -- these do not include substantial attention from South Korea, China and other Asian firewall sources • The Page follows Wiki protocol of non-promotion and other criteria • The exhibits of global reach and the organic growth of the association membership • The importance of a peace initiative, which is a difficult subject, successfully implementing hundreds of substantive local and global community and inter-community work for the betterment of people, both in advantaged and disadvantaged nations • U.N. accreditation with representation in New York and Geneva • One of the purposes of Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general is to inform, especially when the subject is controversial. Peace, unfortunately, is controversial and International Cities of Peace has had success in finding common ground. This Page is needed and informative and contributes to little understood branches of knowledge, peace studies and peace building. Thank you, Pppry, for holding the line and allowing editors to make this page better. Please consider my overarching request in addition to the three editors requesting no deletion, as well as administrators rejecting the blocking of editors. Sent with respect. Vritta100 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't withdraw this nomination (Wikipedia rules only allow that to be done if no other uses haven't supported deletion) and even if I could I wouldn't. I made a deliberate choice to disengage, and let other AfD regulars evaluate the article for themselves, since it's been abundantly clear that neither of us is going to convince the other since shortly after your first comment here.

Your best bet here is to stop posting walls of text that nobody is likely to read and try to focus on presenting specific sources that establish notability. Ideally the three best sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there were a reverse WP:HEYMANN standard for articles becoming even less worthy of keeping over the course of the AfD discussion, this would qualify. Massive blocks of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH have been introduced into the article. It already failed WP:NORG but now it fails ever so much more so. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the first image (File:Growth2023.png) is probably a copyvio, to boot. Gonna nominate it for deletion on Commons. Toadspike [Talk] 11:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This discussion has been bludgeoned within an inch of its life, and yet Dclemens correctly points out that the article is terrible. I likely contains several copyright violating images, tons of unsourced OR, and several citations to inappropriate sources like some linkedin post I can't view without logging in. If I've ever seen a case for TNT, this is it. Even if this is notable (I am not sure it is), we need to start from the ground up. Toadspike [Talk] 11:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Would be good to delete current Page source and for another editor to take over and start from scratch. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability of any flavour, just pure promo blurb. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. In looking through google books and scholar, I do think there is a credible claim that this organization is well known internationally and would pass WP:NONPROFIT. It gets mentioned briefly but what I think is in significant global context in [6] There's coverage of the organziation's work globally within context to the Covid-19 pandemic in Africa (for example) and also drug/gang wars in Mexico ([7]). There's also coverage of Nanjing becoming the first city of peace in China in 2017 in several books (for example [8], [9]), and its work in Dayton, Ohio [10]) Some journal articles with coverage include: [11], [12], [13] Theses also cover the organization, [14] Altogether, I think it meets the NONPROFIT WP:SNG, but the current article needs serious editing down. I suggest stubifying it, rather than WP:TNT.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick and dirty source analysis: The first, third, fourth, fifth sources mentioned in this !vote have but a single sentence on the subject and are definitionally WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. The Dayton source has four brief trivial mentions. Of the scholarly mentions, one is a single paragraph that recapitulates the organization's mission, and another is a brief namecheck, as is the thesis. Two of 4meter4's listed sources are the exact same book chapter (see here, here). That source constitutes independent WP:SIGCOV, but it does not pass WP:NONPROFIT or WP:NORG because multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV are required. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and companies) as I can't find any good sources for the subject. I also believe that the user who created the page (User:Engineerconsultant) might have a conflict of interest due to their name. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Engineering, and Jordan. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sopon Pornchokchai

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources provided are primary. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet the people notability guidelines as mentioned by LibStar. I did a few Google searches, and the results were minimal to say the least. Nothing that indicates significance or notability as a person. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was considerable press spotlight on him in 2013 when he ran for Bangkok governor. It's mostly reporting of his campaigning stunts (Thairath, Sanook, Prachatai), interviews focusing on his policies (MCOT FM 96.5, Voice TV), and profiles and campaign updates based on PR material (Isranews, Krungthep Turakij, Post Today, Sanook, Sanook, Sanook). Apart from that campaign, he's quite regarded as an expert in his field, and is quoted a lot in the press,[15][16][17][18][19][20] which should push his notability beyond that coming from the single event. That said, there doesn't seem to be much third-party coverage that looks at the subject's biography in depth. There's this Sanook article, though it's based on information in the Thai Wikipedia. And there's a recent interview on MCOT FM 100.5, but the info mainly comes from him talking about himself. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His Thai name "โสภณ พรโชคชัย" should be used for searching. There are plenty of references, such as those provided by Paul_012 above. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources given by Paul_012 above—that's enough for him to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. ManoiCMU (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more eyes to look at the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janicke Askevold

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

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Norway. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say she meets WP:NACTOR with her roles in My Way and China Salesman, two notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm she had significant roles in those 2 films? LibStar (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can. "premier rôle important" says one of the sources cited about her role in My Way (Sofia Kiukkonen) (you can also watch the film); and as for China Salesman, I haven't seen it but all sources mention her as "starring" in the film (https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514f344d444f31457a6333566d54/index.html for example, or https://variety.com/2018/film/news/mike-tyson-steven-seagal-china-salesman-bought-1202663343/ or just look at the poster (https://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/films/china-salesman, she's not smaller than Steven Seagal :D) Mushy Yank (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My database access has borked so I can't evaluate these properly, but there are lots of Norwegian newspapers that mention her here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Not only are there no sources, this was created by a sock account and, due to there not really being sources, never expanded beyond one sentence, and therefore G5 applies. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatzichristos

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

No refs on the page for many years. Searching for refs is difficult because it appears that there have been people with this word as part of their name. I don't speak Greek, I would be interested to see if others can find anything relevant. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Greece. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well it seems it is a dance - a search brings up dancers doing it on YouTube clips so potentially sourceable, though the fact there’s no Greek article about it doesn’t bode well. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Youth Championships

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

Articles included are different from each other in name. even at close scenario, hatnote can work. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless. Three entries which would make it more crowded in the hatnote space. Also, at worst South American Youth Championships would be a redirect to one of them. Geschichte (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, note that this is a set index article and not a traditional article, see for example South American Championships or any of those in Category:Set index articles on sports. Both South American Youth Football Championship and South American Youth Championships in Athletics are often just called "South American Youth Championships" in published sources, so it's reasonable that someone looking up that phrase might want to go to one of those articles. --Habst (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are also "South American Youth Championships" in chess, archery, and sailing, so the list could certainly be expanded in the future. --Habst (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a valid and useful disambiguation page. Left guide (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espu Kola

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ per invalid deletion rationale, populated places do not fall under GNG. Unless you can elaborate on your reasoning? Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were censuses in Iran in 2011 and 2016 which should give us more up-to-date info rather than the cited 2006 one. However, I couldn't find any information in their census data site about this specific settlement, possibly I didn't find the correct sheet though. --Gilc (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User talk:JJPMaster regarding concerns that were not addressed at the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think either the nomination nor the keep !votes engaged with the essential issue here, which is that this place quite possibly does not exist as an actual community. The reason being that Iran counts its census at rural locations called Abadi. These are simply census-taking locations, and need not correspond to actual villages/towns (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't), and are essentially the Iranian version of census tracts (something explicitly excluded by WP:GEOLAND). Carlossuarez46 went through the 2006 Iranian census making these articles at an incredible fast rate, without bothering to check whether these places actually existed as anything more than a census-taking location. Many of them were obviously wells, pumps, farms, shops, bridges etc. and have been deleted. For example, on the day he created this article, he created at least 445 other articles also about Iranian "villages" (I say "at least" because at least 20,000 of the articles they created have since been deleted and the deleted articles won't show up in this search). Especially since this place doesn't appear to have been included in later censuses (like Gilc I can't find it), it's very likely that it wasn't a real village or community of any sort. =

I've tried a bunch of searches, using the name in the article, the title in Farsi, and the alternative romanisation of "Esbu Kola", both generally on google, and also in GeoNames and OpenStreetMap, and whilst I do find sourcing for Esbu Kola, Savadkuh, Esbu Kola, Babol and Esbu Kola, Sari, I cannot find anything confirming the existence of this place.

TL;DR - Without any actual location it is impossible to confirm the existence or otherwise of this place as an actual populated community (rather than just a bridge/shop/factory/farm/whatever where the population was counted) and so it should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation with better sourcing, etc. The problems FOARP points out are well-known (or should be, to frequenters of geographical AfDs). Disappearing from subsequent census records makes me think that the single occurrence in the 2006 census is insufficient to substantiate this as a real populated place. Choess (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, pulling ~~teeth~~ my previous opinion following FOARP's elaboration. I stand by speedy keep being the correct response to the initial statement, "fails WP:GNG", which was not usable as a conversation starter, but I'm on board with the Iran geostub situation being problematic. Geschichte (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Better Now

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE turned up no reviews. Except this which is hardly a reliable source. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clearly no reviews apart from cinemacats above. Does not pass on any other criteria.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of offhand mentions in Newspapers.com, but not anything that would establish that this film is notable. It looked to have released to extremely little fanfare, with the little coverage it did receive it got by virtue of having DeWitt play a smaller role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norges-la-Ville

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and also WP:TROUT. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An official administrative division of the country, of course it passes GNG.
Keep per WP:NPLACE #1 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep its a municipality. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an administrative sub-division. --Gilc (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crystal clear notable as a populated place. Can be expanded with information from the French article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that there are plenty of precedents to keep all communes of France, which are more like towns or townships in the United States. We’re going through a drive to find references for all such municipalities in the “Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009”. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Corporation

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-known company in Canada, simply for doing the asbestos mining. [21], [22] and [23]... Or redirect to here I suppose -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law#Canada... I'm surprised there isn't an article on the industry here. It was still exporting the stuff for years after it was illegal here at home. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a nasty strike a number of years ago in Quebec [24] that caused ripples for decades. Asbestos Corp was one of the companies involved. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources easily pass GNG, and this is more a candidate for expansion rather than deletion; also the vague rationale is a disqualifier; why does it fail GNG? Nate • (chatter) 21:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takoutaue-ike Dam

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails GNG so hard even jawiki doesn't have a page about it. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find WP:SIGCOV of this dam, and I don't see an obvious redirect target (there doesn't appear to be an article on the nearby pond or stream that this dams on the English Wikipedia). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Sources on article appear to be all promo reviews, primary sources, or an interview. No significant coverage found in searches. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found this source but couldn't find anything else to establish notability. I could be convinced to vote the other way if more people come forward with better sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is fairly notable. The article just needs more sources. —theMainLogan (t•c) 06:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan Just needs more sources? Sources I wasn’t able to find. Did you find more sources? --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article "just needs more sources" is not a reason to keep the article; it is unhelpful commentary that points out the obvious. Please show us actual sources that establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best source I could find was a descent passing mention in this scholarly book: [25] I personally would be sad to the lose the page as it is used as a source on wikipedia. I'm therefore abstaining from voting as I don't think there is enough sourcing to say keep; although that would be my preference.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markie Mark

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

Nothing out there in the archives of the media press for this individual, either under Mark Strippel or Markie Mark. He is clearly a successful individual both in music and radio management, but I can't see that he is independently notable beyond the notability of his band (who already have an article) or the BBC radio stations he has an involvement in. Flip Format (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, although Panjabi Hit Squad is a possibility for a redirect target. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that GNG has not been established here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to be an important local figure in the Civil Rights Movement in Shreveport both according to his obituary and his inclusion on a black history media page (click on his article) This is also this news article (while from a local channel website; was a reposting of a CNN piece) which called him the first African-American dentist in Shreveport. He is also mentioned in this U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report. Altogether, I think there is a credible claim to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contra Bearcat, there is nothing in GNG that says "two" is not "multiple", but we don't even have two. (WP:THREE is an essay on being persuasive at AfD, not a guideline.) The obituary source in the article is one of non-independent obituaries submitted by family members, not an editorially independent piece. The CNN/KBZK article is SIGCOV in a secondary, independent, reliable source, but the KTBS piece offered by 4meter4 is four sentences long and does not constitute SIGCOV. In the absence of another qualifying source, this is a GNG failure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Grant Neighborhood Association

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

Non-notable neighborhood association which lacks WP:SIGCOV, comes off with a promotional tone, and is sourced to primary sources and a fluff piece. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NORG. A neighborhood or suburb is often notable; a neighborhood association is rarely. FWIW, I was secretary of my neighborhood association, and we were not notable, either. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG. No independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star Daily

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage about this newspaper to establish notability. I couldn't even find any trivial mentions of it in any reliable sources. The only mentions of it that I could find were in Wikipedia mirrors. It's also been unreferenced for over 15 years now. GranCavallo (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Russia. GranCavallo (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having also previously tried to find anything on this publication, and coming up blank, I'd like to second everything the Nom says. I also think if the editors of the Russian, Erzya and Moksha Wikipedia's haven't managed to pull together an article for the main newspaper in Mordovia, I don't know if we'll be able to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman, Indiana

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

A rail non-place/post office, briefly dismissed in the local history as "but the postoffice, now abolished, since the introduction of rural free delivery, was located at Thurman, which is not a village either." Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, and anyway the article is a lie since the only narrative source of information specifically states it is not a village. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. No results on Google News (that one result is a false positive). Less than 70 results on Google Search. *starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Non-notable locale.TH1980 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPLACE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion has been going on for ~3 weeks and there has been a mix of keep and delete votes. There's been a debate on whether the sources are reliable, have significant coverage, etc. Therefore, I'm closing this as 'no consensus'. Even one participant has pointed it out. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Bus

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

Not notable besides its brief appearance on Angry Video Game Nerd. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability. Gumboot! 🌵 ^(talk) 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was deleted before with far less to establish notability (and I would have agreed). Having recreated the page, I would now argue that there is more notability to the game than just AVGN. The soundtrack is regarded by multiple outlets as notable for its bad quality, and a Venezuelan university report mentions its legacy of bringing attention to games in Venezuela. Whether AVGN promoting it led to more people paying attention shouldn't imo be a disqualifier. JSwift49 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JSwift49 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep. A decent amount of sources demonstrated its independent notability, even if the article does require some rewrites to be in a more readable state.

By the way, article had been marked with copyright violations due to the article previously hosting lyrics to a song from Arthur which is obviously still copyrighted and the lyrics are still in article history. It has no effect on this article's deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stuff about the soundtrack comes from Screenrant and CBR, sites long known as non-indicative of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added Vice and The Music soundtrack coverage as well. JSwift49 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VICE doesn't seem half bad, but it only specifically points out the title theme, leaving open the question of whether it's actually coverage of the game itself. WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail".

The Music is only a sentence or two. Not significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack was also featured on a 2022 episode of BBC Radio 3's 'Late Junction' program covering gaming soundtracks, though it is not possible to see what was specifically said about it. [26] JSwift49 14:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSwift49. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's very little actual substantive coverage, and what does exist isn't enough to build an article on. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a full mirror of the page to not be lost media Iamsteve69420 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that the game's notorious audio is well-known but the citations in the article do not provide much coverage of any other aspects of the game, little that there is. Most of the sources are listicles, which is fine, but their purpose and content is mostly alone to state that the menu music sucks. I don't think a passing academic reference is good evidence that it's brought attention to Venezuelan game development. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the basic coverage of other aspects of the game is to be expected, as the game is known for being exceedingly simple (drive the bus back and forth and honk the horn). So the soundtrack is the main aspect of notoriety, though you also have AVGN, the academic reference, Niconico News with dedicated coverage of the game at large, plus some of the listicles discussing the soundtrack also mention the gameplay.

Screen Rant says the game is "on the list of must-play games for YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and retro enthusiasts interested in the more bizarre parts of gaming history."
There were also two books/reference guides? in Japanese about CrazyBus written by the same person; however I could only find previews of a couple of pages.
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434377
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434354
JSwift49 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AVGN is non-RS per WP:VG/S unless it's widely reported that the AVGN review itself is notable. For the others, again, what mention there is of the game is trivial or not really reliable. Screen Rant mentions it very briefly in passing. And I can't see any evidence those books have anything to do with the game from the links supplied? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we have an academic source covering the AVGN interview, and Screen Rant additionally gives Crazy Bus five sentences on its list of worst soundtracks?

Re. the books, the page previews I found confirm they are about CrazyBus (they are both linked in the article). JSwift49 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the article was first created, I argued that there was enough coverage of the game by sources to warrant inclusion. The addition of further references demonstrates this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia article has seven references. Left guide (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: According to Perennial Sources, ScreenRant is only marginally WP:RELIABLE and there's no consensus on Vice. That leaves only the BBC. Still, I'm all for giving this article a chance, especially if more and better sources can be found.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Game acclaimed for its low quality, recurrently appearing on worst of all time lists. [27], [28], [29]. Svartner (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin - these do not seem like reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Bomb is a user-generated fan wiki, and fails WP:USERG. The "Bad Game Hall of Fame" is a one-man Wordpress WP:BLOG and the other is also a blog with no reason to think it has a clear editorial policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for better source evaluation. Seems like there are sources present, but a good RS with SIGCOV is yet to be found. Also, need to address the newly found sources' reliability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per Zx, Giant Bomb is a fan-generated wiki, and Bad Game Hall of Fame seems to a self-published blog. I can't judge Passage M Secreta since it doesn't seem to have any editorial standards I can find, and was a blog for a long period of time. Crazy Bus's article was made a month after it shifted away from being a blog (Though I still can't verify if it actually had standards or not) but its author has been blocked and thus whoever wrote it is unverifiable. There's so much undeterminable here I'm not even sure if it's viable for use at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t support adding Giant Bomb or Bad Game Hall of Fame to the article for these reasons. I think the existing sources are enough for the article to be kept. JSwift49 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is only notable for negative reception, then I would suggest List of video games notable for negative reception. The argument here seems to be that it is less notable than Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing? IgelRM (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask to be careful of WP:OTHER. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus. Without an in-depth source analysis (preferably in a table like the example at WP:SIRS), it is really hard to judge the merits of either side of this discussion. At this point there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, and I can't easily discern myself which is best, partly because many of the sources are in a language other than English. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sistani (people). ✗plicit 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sistani of Golestan

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

This article is very difficult to understand. Some people moved from Sistan to Golestan for reasons that are largely lost in translation. Is this movement notable? Between Farsi and Russian sources, hard to say. I don’t think our readers are well served by having something so garbled in mainspace, so suggest draftifying for further work. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sistani (people). Running the sources through machine translation suggests that this migration is likely notable and the sources seem to be reliable scholarly work. This might qualify as content not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:DEL#REASON #14) and justify WP:TNT, but deletion would remove the sources from the page history in case someone wants to recreate this with comprehensible text. Therefore, blanking and redirecting is the best solution. Toadspike [Talk] 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator I’ve no objection to a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sistani (people) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Allegiance

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [30]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide so far seems the best solution to me. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. 2020 (18 years after release) saw three paragraphs in San Francisco Chronicle, "Savoring ‘Star Wars’ with fans’ guidance" by Jef Rouner, May 4, 2020 and online [31]. At the time it had some coverage in Halliday, Claire (13 June 2002). "Amazing". The Age., in local news (very interview based) "In a galaxy - close to you". Melton/Bacchus Marsh Leader. 21 May 2002., and Williams, Kate (22 April 2002). "Star Wars fan - feels the force". Leader - Sandringham Brighton Advertiser. and other short mentions such as in [32]. International coverage almost 20 years later in SF Chron gets me over the line. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme's source analysis. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above such as reliable newspapers such as San Francisco Chronicle and The Age so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family of JD Vance

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This article is two sentences and contains nothing not already in JD Vance's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every single piece of information can be found in his article. Bluepotato81 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Not sufficient significance to keep this page. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability". — Maile (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Two sentences with no information is not an article. Do not do this. Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kentucky and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WorldMappings (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leave the article pitching (which this reads as) to magazines, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK.TH1980 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, maybe this could be worthy of it's own article years down the line, haha. Grahaml35 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is indeed a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which adds to value to the encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Bujňák

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

Bujňák played a total of 711 minutes in the Slovak First League before transferring to lower clubs beginning with 2017. Regarding secondary sources, I only found a passing mention on Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Needs secondary sources to show WP:SIGCIV. Unable to find any coverage that meets this. Demt1298 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:FOOTYN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Sukharev (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC).--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 13:05, 12 November 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 November 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no major success in the sport, not even played for a top-flight team. Nothing much in the form of significant coverage in English in Google News. Very few pages on Google Search for his Russian name. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Bamboos (rock band). We've witnessed plenty of drama during the three weeks this AfD has been going on, including multiple appearances under different aliases and IPs by an admitted COI editor. I see a rough consensus that MUSICBIO#C6 is not a magic bullet guaranteeing notability. That said, the proposed redirect is a sensible ATD, and preserves page history, making a selective merger easier, if warranted. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Pichler

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

Article contains no reliable sources, has been marked as such for over 4 years. I've looked for sources but have been unable to find anything reliable or reputable, Google News, Newspapers and Books turns up nothing at all. Current text is likely original research, possibly advertising - suspicion they've been written by the person the article is about. Also question the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfwaywrong (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2024

Delete - seems self-promotional, not even 130 results on Google Search. Not much on Google News either, bunch of social media links or brief mentions. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starship.paint. and Halfwaywrong.

I was a bit surprised to see this page nominated for deletion out of the blue after its been online since I think 2007 or so.

There are currently About 1,570 results in google for "Shakir Pichler" in quotes and that's not including the extraneous ones if googled without quotes.

The sources are reliable - IMDB for example but I think it could do with some proper formatting perhaps.

I have edited it from time to time when others have added incorrect data as well as removing old social links like myspace from the days of old :) and this page is also linked on various other wiki pages band line-ups and feature films for example.

It's certainly not being used for 'self promotion' in any way but it is factual of someone who has made a worthy contribution to both Australian music as well as Australian and Hollywood feature films so not sure why it was targeted to be honest.

There are a bunch of other credible links I could provide when I have the time and I should edit the page to make it more up to date at some point.

Anyway, again, it's definitely not 'self promotional' just because I made sure it was factual.

I'd love some help in adding all the proper ref links (film credits) (Band credits) and things to make sure it adheres to any changing wiki regulations.

Thank you. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sexbeatrecords: - allow me to acquaint you with WP:RSP, where you can see that WP:IMDB is in fact generally unreliable. I suggest you find reliable sources to bolster the article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Starship.paint. Thanks. Wow, I always thought IMDB was highly ranked but good to know.

Every film credited on this wiki page is verifiable on each feature film's official imdb sub page but interesting to know it's not a reliable link even though some of the titles are big Hollywood movies.

Hopefully there are links to each film's official info separately somewhere although I have no idea where to look. The production companies involved perhaps?

WP:RSP does mention that there are exceptions to the unreliable sources. I would have thought that each film's official IMDB entry would be ok? like for one example "Jasper Jones" and then view all cast and crew to see "Shakir Pichler' listed as action vehicles coordinator. etc https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5091014/ Or still not good?

As I mentioned, I'd love to clean up the formatting of this page to adhere to Wiki's best practice. And how to add and format proper inline links...

Thanks again for your quick reply and advice. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sexbeatrecords: - actually the main concern here is WP:GNG. To put it in a different way, is Shakir Pichler a notable (prominent/important/distinguished) person? Wikipedia does not seek to write entries for everyone on Earth. If Shakir Pichler is notable, reliable sources will write about him. There will be journal articles, books, newspaper articles, magazine articles. It is up to you to prove that Shakir Pichler is notable by receiving reliable source coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people seem to think so!

Considering how many Australian bands he has played and recorded/released albums with, released music videos aired on shows like ABC RAGE and interviewed multiple times on radio stations like Triple J & then there is the film industry side - considering how many feature films he has been THE action vehicles coordinator of and in also appearing IN some of these films, he should absolutely have a wiki entry that documents and links with these achievements. Bit surprised this is even in contention tbh.

There are lots of newspaper articles regarding Shakir Pichler in those bands in hard copy that go back to the mid 1980's that are not available online. 157.211.92.236 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
city of sydney library https://library.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Montage/Music.aspx?keyword=shakir+pichler&method=0&sort=1003&refinements= Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

I found 2 pages that speak about Shakir Pichler in The Encyclopedia Of Australian Rock And Pop which is the Oz music Bible for want of a better word.

You are welcome to 'borrow' it for free digitally if you don't have it - the book is mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Australian_Rock_and_Pop

You can borrow it here https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2288124W/The_encyclopedia_of_Australian_rock_and_pop

About Shakir Pichler in the kryptonics - page 352

And about Shakir Pichler in The bamboos - page 39

I will keep looking for other links when I have more time. That is a good one. Great book to have too.

Shakir Pichler also mentioned on Whammo encyclopedia in the Bamboos https://web.archive.org/web/20040427212519/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=68

And also in the Kryptonics here https://web.archive.org/web/20040807052007/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=997

These were two VERY important original bands from Perth who toured, released and contributed and pioneered WA's rich musical tapestry of original music nationally and internationally. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Australian music https://historyofaussiemusic.blogspot.com/search?q=kryptonics

Also Nick Sheppard - the guitarist from seminal UK Punk band THE CLASH even mentions Shakir Pichler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Sheppard Sexbeatrecords (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sexbeatrecords: - the whammo sources (which, I believe, are the exact same as the Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop by Ian McFarlane) do not provide WP:SIGCOV significant coverage, they just mention Pichler very briefly: Kryptonics ... Shakir Pichler (drums) / Bamboos ... In 1986, Shakir Pichler replaced Tony Chiallella on drums ... 1987 ... Russell Hopkinson (ex-Vicious Circle) had replaced Pichler on drums. Blogspot is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An admin Didier Landner very kindly added more references to the page and voted .Keep

There are also hard copy books that mention Shakir Pichler and also a few of his bands.

One is this one https://repressedrecords.com/products/george-matzkov-way-out-west-the-west-australian-pop-rock-blues-music-scene-1960-1979-book-cd which I no longer have for some reason (probably lent it and forgot) .

Also found Shakir's youtube page has a long radio interview with him live on 6UVS-FM (now RTR FM) From Perth 1986! All about the Bamboos and their massive east coast tour which was great to listen to just now! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5fNppILFGY

I have reached out to a friend who may be able to contact Shakir to see if they can get him to send any links we don't know about that would add to his credits or newspaper clippings etc if that is possible to even use if he has them. Shakir was regularly interviewed in Australian newspapers and radio stations but can't seem to find archives easily to show this.

Either way, he is an important part of Australian music history and in everyones opinion who knew his bands would absolutely agree. Yes Indie music is niche and I understand that your may not have heard of him or his bands but that only makes his contributions to Oz music more important to retain as it wasn't commercial mainstream homogenised music that everyone knows. SO wiki is a great way to learn about the WA and Australian live music scene in general.

I have been a fan of his bands since the 80's and still have all his records on vinyl to this day.

I can't vote but thats my 2c anyway :) 157.211.92.236 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few more via trove. There's too many links to Shakir pichler to sift through though. This will take time.

howlin moondoggies https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20071126223011/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/44131/20071122-0001/www.amo.org.au/artistedc4.html

The Bamboos paying with Johnny Thunders. https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20200527150202/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/182658/20200526-1156/australianrockreview.com/2010/11/07/lifting-the-lid-on-the-rockbrat-treasure-chest-johnny-thunders-1986-sydney-gig-adverts/index9657.html

Shakir Pichler mentioned here [33]

About Shakir Pichlers legendary Rosemount Rumble https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20180318110116/http://rosemounthotel.com.au/event/rosemount-rumble-46/

Shakir photo from 1985 Kryptonics here https://www.forcedexposure.com/Artists/KRYPTONICS.html Sexbeatrecords (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still lacking WP:SIGCOV for the above links. Howlin' MoonDoggies has one (or if you are charitable, two) sentence on Pichler. Bamboos is some sort of an online comment left by Pichler. Rosemount has one sentence on Pichler. Kyptonics has one sentence on Pichler. The photo is just a photo and does not even mention Pichler. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a digitised newspaper clipping of a big scandal that was reported in quite a few newspapers for some weeks regarding Shakir's scandalous departure from the band 'The Bamboos' mid-tour East coast tour!

From memory, this was big news in the music industry at the time and people still talk about it today. Daily News: Friday October 17th 1986 [34] is one such story. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic ref Shakir Pichler in the story about how the Kryptonics formed etc. [35] 157.211.92.236 (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious Design does offer some coverage on Pichler, but it is essentially this: he quit his band without telling them, and they cancelled their tour. That's all. It's not very much. Allmusic just mentions him thrice. It is not WP:SIGCOV. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Delicious Design is Shakir Pichler's own web development business. Halfwaywrong (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've add references (McFarlane and Kent) to support subject's membership of two notable bands. Hence, passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#6 per "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".Didier Landner (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! 157.211.92.236 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete!

I am a high school teacher in Perth and Shakir was invited to be a special guest at our Montessori school last year to talk about life in bands and also all the films he worked on and appeared in.

To this day, a year later, the kids all say it was the best day they have had at school!

He showed parts of all the films he worked on as the action vehicles coordinator as well as the parts he also appeared in and then showed us all the music videos of the bands he has played in and then gave a drum performance and some lessons for the kids!

The students have regularly used his Wikipedia page for reference in various home-work and projects since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.65.6 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone wants to take a look at the sources added to the article since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Vanderwaalforces: - I reviewed all the links in the article as of this version. References 1, 2, 3, 5 do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Reference 4 is an offline book but based on Google Books, the book is a Chronological listing of popular recordings ... Provides information on how many times the recording appeared in the charts and the highest position it reached. It is unlikely that it provides SIGCOV either. This link in the article provides one instance of somewhat SIGCOV but only says that Pichler quit his band unannounced in Sydney, and his band cancelled their tour. The Who's who of Australian rock book is an offline resource and I cannot confirm if there is any SIGCOV. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget Shakir Pichler's own project "The Howlin' MoonDoggies" who are known world-wide and released THREE full length albums released internationally, 2 music videos played on numerous commercial free to air stations In Australia ABC, Foxtel Channel V etc, Numerous Triple J (Band of the week) and uni radio station interviews with him as well, and his songs being included in FIVE international compilation albums (I have so far only found links to 3 but there are more).

OR his film career which is also extensive.

For example, he was THE action vehicles coordinator in Australian film 'Jasper Jones' where he single-handedly sourced and even drove in many scenes, all the cars from the period (1960's) the film was set in, which is a huge achievement in itself, let alone all the other feature films he worked on in the same capacity, like he did for the film "1%" for example as well.

I finally received a big thank you message via social media contact - He would like to thank everyone who has been helping source links and tidy up the wiki page. He is actually a Web Designer and said he wishes he could edit his own page (rather than the fumbling job I have done) but really does appreciate what you all have done over the years :)

Shakir Pichler is a notable identity with massive contributions in both the Music and Film industry - Is this really still up for debate? Seems a bit strange. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I was typing the above message I have just been sent a message finally from Shakir via reaching out on his socials.. He also just sent links to some newspaper scans etc which I have now added hopefully in the right place :) Please bear with me if the format isnt perfect and any help would be greatly appreciated so we can make this page good and hopefully put this vote to bed. Much love to the wiki volunteers. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually his project 'The Howlin Moondoggies' appeared on SIX international compilations and not 5. I actually have them somewhere in my collection I think, so Ill find the rest of the links when I can.. 157.211.92.236 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Who's Who of Australia Rock source - I've found a physical copy for sale, that shows it appears to be basically a list of the bands, members and discography, which I'd argue is not WP:SIGCOV.

I'd also argue that Pichler's contributions to his bands are better served in the articles of those bands. Halfwaywrong (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking to the recent links added and they are still not good enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV. One is an undated interview from an unknown publication, apparently of Pichler's former bandmates, who said he quit the band and was beloved by fans before that. Two has a one sentence mention of Pichler, who is said to be part of a band. Three does not even mention Pichler explicitly. Four has a two sentence mention of Pichler and just says that he is new to the band (first time recording with him). Five I have covered before, just says Pichler quit and band ended tour. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put all this together regardless of if you deem the links 'reliable' (it was a long time ago so it's not easy to get new links obviously so even links that at least show the albums etc regardless of where the links live matter as evidence itself- with everything combined including the film work they are strong evidence of WP:SIGCOV

this is looking like a bit of a witch-hunt to me and starting to wonder why he is being targeted when you need only look at the incredibly long list of achievements. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The albums and film work are primary sources and not independent of the subject. We would not count them as reliable sources, so there is no WP:SIGCOV there. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they primary sources? They are not self-published either. If they were this page would be about me (Christine) and I am definitely no one. I don't really understand you point here.

Also, despite you saying wikipedia's official film entries are not a reliable source's even though they independently reflect the same credits as imdb but all the films which credit him on imdb or links have been removed - they are not primary sources so its a bit of a lose lose when battling trying to show evidence of WP:SIGCOV! When things keep getting deleted or 'discredited'.

Again I ask, please look at this holistically for the bigger picture.

I can download and screen-shot every movie at the closing credits with Shakir Pichler's name on it if I have to. Or take photos of every album he has played in and bands he has fronted like The Howlin Moondoggies for example. I don't know what other hoops I can possibly jump to appease this pedantic return-fire.

Identifying and using primary sources requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors.

In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify:

Is this source self-published or not? (If so, then see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.)

Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Independent sources.)

Is this source primary or not?

Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources.

there have been countless radio interviews with JUST Shakir that I know of but can't find online other than the one I did find on youtube. And countless one on one interviews in paper and street mags over the years but unfortunately (I checked archives toay for Drum Media Sydney and Inpress Melbourne) dont go back far enough and miss by about 5 years. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please remove that 'original research' warning as it really seems unfounded to say the least.

this is getting way beyond ridiculous now. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved ... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Pichler's albums are no doubt close to him. Pichler's films are no doubt close to him. Credits do not provide SIGCOV. I did not add the original research warning but there is so much unreferenced material in the article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re 'seems self-promotional' - Shakir isn't promoting anything that I can find online other than his web design which is not linked here and his humanitarian work which is also not linked here - all of the info here is simply factual and historic. 157.211.92.236 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how you are aware of Pichler's humanitarian work. 157.211.92.236, curious how all of your 19 edits so far are all regarding Pichler. Curious how all of the 51 edits of Sexbeatrecords so far are all regarding Pichler, even including a 16-year break from Wikipedia broken by this nomination of this article for deletion. Curious how, at File:Shakir Pichler.jpg, Sexbeatrecords uploaded the image as the "copyright holder" of the "self-made" image whose author is "Shakir Pichler". starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even saying? When I met Shakir ONCE, many years ago we were chatting about the 16 Australian band compilation he released on his then record label 'Sexbeat' called "skunk & disorderly" which to this day is one of my favourite albums that had a great review in UK Kerrang magazine that I used to subscribe to when I lived in UK and I asked what his next release will be and his answer was 'never doing that again as it was a huge task' and that he is closing the label down. I then said "I would love to continue it if he is going to throw it away and he surprisingly said "It's yours if you want it!" and gave me permission to have it. Although, ashamedly I have done nothing with it.

I did have some partners who had big plans and we created Shakir's wiki page and were systematically adding all bands on that label at the time but life got in the way.

So I got a notification recently that his wiki page was up for deletion and I was shocked so yes, its probably been 16 years since I made any edits.

When I finally got through to Shakir last week via his socials as we weren't connected at the time so the messages were in 'requests', he was surprised to hear from me and said he hadn't looked at what was on his page in over a decade.

H e thanked me and when I asked if he could help he said he can't edit his own page and he doesn't even have a wiki account but if there's anything I need to just ask and he will try to send whatever when he has time.

The image I uploaded was public from his socials and I don't know what I clicked as far as copyright but its free to use from the horses mouth. Public image.

As for his humanitarian work - its ALL OVER his Instagram! He helps organise anti genocide rallies for Palestine, Lebanon, congo etc and looking at his own web design page deliciousdesign.com.au he also made the not for profit FOPWA.ORG page for free.

SO what I'm curious about is why you seem so determined to remove him. I know some people on the wrong side of history go about things this way intentionally. Not saying you are one of them.

I and many people in WA would be sad to see this page deleted and feel his contributions to both music and film are more than worthy of having a page here.

He again said he wishes he could help me as he is a web designer but doesn't want to touch the page but thankful again to all who are supporting it. That's why my edits are pretty messy, so apologies for that. Hopefully a nice editor will tidy a bit when they have time.

Christine. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. Clearly meets criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO as the drummer for Kryptonics and The Bamboos; both bands of which are covered in encyclopedias. However, the WP:OR and WP:COI issues need to be addressed. I am going to be WP:BOLD and stubify the article to address those issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @4meter4, many thanks for helping to clean up the Shakir Pichler page (sincerely appreciate your time! - however, I feel the removal of all the Bands, and releases plus the removal of all the feature films completely detracts the point of providing the most important information about him.

Originally each film had a link to each films (official) IMDB link which credits him.. I was then told imdb is deemed unreliable (but there are exceptions) - The bands and album releases were linked to multiple external music catalogue sites or record label sites.

Unfortunately I'm not a web designer like Shakir is and he won't touch the wiki page so I really need some help getting those 2 category lists back with links that wiki editors will accept.

Just calling out in case you could possibly help in this respect. I'm sure you are busy but wiping out all of that makes the page pretty much 'nothing'.

Happy to remove all the extraneous text info on him though and just list the achievements as I feel they really need to be there.

Some schools have literally used his page for information on the arts but now there is nothing there to reference.

Thanks in advance for any help on this. :)

Christine <3 Sexbeatrecords (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4Perhaps you could restore the bands and releases plus the film credits in a different section that wont be challenged for 'unreliable sources' (Official films IMDB for example) despite them all being 100% factual? Can that be created? Again, many thanks for what I'm sure is your precious time. :) C. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO - yes, he does. But WP:MUSICBIO also says: Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. "may be notable" is not "is notable". starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bamboos (rock band). Whilst he was a member of two notable bands both were relatively short term and first was outside of the Kryptonics main period of note. Main thing of not here would be dogging his band mid tour. Not worth a stand alone article. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme "dog act" ? Sounds a bit biased and personal without any of knowledge of the actual situation or reason for such a drastic thing he felt he had to do at that time. Perhaps interview him and find out what really happened that day for him to make such a drastic decision. Do yu know him? I feel you may have anterior motives after that comment.

Sounds like a personal problem you may have with him to me!

Shakir was a FOUNDING MEMEBR of the Kryptonics and in the band when they did their seminal work.. First ever shows, Record deal. 2 Singles and a music video.

He was in the band for 4 years if you read up on it - they were jamming for years before ever playing live.. He started underage with them.

And the other bands like The Howlin Moondoggies which was HIS PROJECT, released THREE studio albums, 2 music videos televised on multiple channels and music shows and appeared on SIX international compilations in USA, UK, JAPAN.. all due to his work and him drumming, writing, producing, promoting and managing his band..

He also played drums in all-star band "The Terraces" with members from Rose Tattoo, One Way System, Horse-UK and The CLASH.

Not to mention all the other bands he has played, toured and recorded with and not to mention the long list of feature films he has worked on as head action vehicles coordinator, stuntman, art department and even appeared in.

Some of which were big Hollywood films ie: Mission Impossible 2( Terrible movie though) and Ghost Rider (slightly less terrible) and some of the best iconic Australian films to date. Jasper Jones for example (Check imdb link)

His page deserves to be here on the merits of what one Western Australian has achieved in the arts alone.

WA is very proud of their arts achievers and he is right up there doing us proud.

Don't be a hater. its unattractive to say the least and doesn't make you look good. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sexbeat, or should I call you Shakir, "dog act" was a bad call, that's why I changed my comment. Before your reply I see. No-one is buying your claim that you just met him once and subsequently ~~dedicated your life to him~~ spent so much time and effort here for a simple Wikipedia page. Please stop bludgeoning with run of the mill claims. Simply show us some in depth coverage or give it a rest. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme She (as disclosed on her talk page) isn't Shakir but is in contact with him through e-mail as disclosed on his talk page. There is a WP:COI relationship but I think her heart is in the right place. Be kind. I 'm trying to coach her on our policies in regards to no original research, sourcing, notability, and encyclopedic tone. There is a big learning curve when you are new to wikipedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that duffbeerforme's remarks are going a bit too far. The bludgeoning and rambling comments are annoying and unhelful, but there is no reason to belittle another user with comments like subsequently dedicated your life to him. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @4meter4 for you compassion and offer of help teach me if/when you have time... someone banned my sexbeat account on the completely false accusation that I was promoting it. A non existent entity.*there is no sexbeat records label and hasn't been for decades now and I have never posted links to anything that tries to sell anything, or self promote as there is nothing to sell. When I 'took it over' it was just that he said he has finished with it and I said can I use the name and he said sure. simple as that. That was almost 20 years ago and I have only JUST gotten in touch now because of this. he uploaded that pnews clipping but said he deesnt have time to mess around re wiki nor was he very interested in it.

I have just come on here to say, apologies if my responses were annoying or bludgeoning?

Yes, I am not an experienced Wiki editor or very web tech savy tbh other than social media I guess and I honestly thought my "ramblings' were required to try to help explain reasoning behind links and further information I have been frantically digging up regarding Shakir Pichler. I probably annoyed HIM the most.. Hopefully not.

I will no longer comment or edit unless asked a specific question directed at me and I won't edit anything else.

I still hope someone can reverse/rescue the biography section in a concise way of listing his releases of music and contributions to film some time if anyone feels they would like to help.

Thanks again for the editors who HAVE been patient with me and apologies again if I have not understood the correct approach to all this. I guess no one is about to put me up for 'wiki editor' position any time soon LOL

All the best

Christine. ChristineBamtonics (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You the person are blocked, not just your account. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to claim that you are not promoting then perhaps you should not say you were promoting. "I did have some partners who had big plans and we created Shakir's wiki page and were systematically adding all bands on that label at the time but life got in the way." duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clutching at straws much? That was 20 years ago! none of those bands even exist now! And I didnt do that. 157.211.88.80 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you missunderstoond or more likely I didn't explain my reply properly when I said 20 years ago i wanted to systematically add all bands.. I was meaning create their own independent wiki pages.. not a label promotion or any type of ecommerce links to promote sales in ANY way. Merely to try to take over want Shakir had first started in order to try to help the Australian music scene. *I'm not interested in any of that these day and just for the record. and even then, I didn't end up even doing that. ChristineBamtonics (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The overwhelming and longtime consensus is that IMbD is an unreliable source, especially for living persons. It’s also surprisingly easy to get a page - even my partner of 17 years has one, as do many of my acquaintances. Substantively, everyone in 2024 understands that not everyone gets an article on Wikipedia; anyone who’s literally read three or more articles will see IMDB in the “external links” section, not the reference section. To claim ignorance is unserious. A lot of the sources are questionable. We’re now looking for major radio, television, newspapers, and similar media. I don’t see anything like that here. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that IMDB can be unreliable especially with just a user page anyone can add, do you honestly think all the films Shakir has been credited in on their official single IMDB film pages production companies would put up with people adding unreliable names and information to, and that information being there for YEARS? Not for one second!

WIkipedia itself even states that although IMDB is generally regarded as an unreliable source, there ARE exceptions and I'd say official film pages would be a classic example of such an exception.

While it's difficult sourcing information from the 1080's, There have been Newspaper clippings scanned and added here.

There has been major radio (6uvs/RTRfm) interview with Shakir posted here.

I am currently hunting for the Triple-J interviews with him but they don't seen to have archives that go back to early 2000 or late 90's whenever it was.

Of course 'not everyone should have a wiki page!)

But also not everyone has over 15 film credits to their name and I'm not talking about home movies here, I'm talking about big Australian iconic films and big Hollywood feature films too.

And not everyone has played in 10 or so bands and recorded with most of them and had varied success locally and internationally in the alternative music scene. The Bamboos, for example, made it to I think it was number 3 on the USA alternative college charts with one of the recordings he played on called "Snuff" which was also one of their music videos easily searched for with him on drums.

I Wish Shakir still had his website as that had all of the original articles and scans back in the day and I don't want to have to annoy him by messaging him on social media if he can upload them somewhere or if he still has them.

Maybe you could put each of the film's official IMDB pages in the 'external links' area and not in his bio area where it subject to 'selective Wiki scrutiny' was before it was all recently removed?

Shakir is a Perth and East coast alternative music ICON who has also made an impressive mark in the feature film industry. I wouldn't call that an 'anyone can have a page'. situation. 157.211.89.132 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Christine, when you created the Shakir Pichler page, you wrote that Pichler was in a relationship with a person called Christine. Is that you? Seems like too much of a coincidence to not be.

To be clear, again, all anyone is asking for is proof of notability and significant coverage of the person. Simply stating the same things over and over isn't helping, it's WP:BLUDGEONING.

My suggestion to you would be to take the research you've done and the knowledge you have of Pichler and get it published somewhere yourself. Halfwaywrong (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unfortunately not this Christine! I couldn't remember that fact and had to read your history link but it was an interesting early edit to read from an interview back then although too much personal information and waffle content I reckon.

I THINK now from memory being jogged, that Christine was Chrisntina from Germany but pretty hazy memory of that as it was just an incidental segway as to why he moved to Spain.

I only remember he used to be actress Rebekah Elmaloglou's partner for quite a few years (had to look up her spelling). They were often seen dodging paparazi in Sydney and seen on red carpet events together at the time.

As for wp:bludgeoning - does it not work both ways when WIki editors make ridiculous claims or neglect or twist or delete key information or report and block an account for a complete and proven in chat history, lie of 'promoting'?

Which has now happened. Then 'sock puppetry' which wasn't the intention to deceive, as I immediately said this is a new account. And it was an innocent mistake as I didn't realise I couldnt make a new one, and from there I thought the general consensus was ok keep hat one and lose the old one. But then a new editor nuked that one too so Im not making any more accounts but I guess I can at least comment at this point.

The 'you are welcome to join in the AFD discussion - but I guess only if you agree to everything the wiki gods say even if it is abusive, or untrue, or twisted?

Should the challenged editor of an AFD not try to explain any justification of why a page should stay that people who know nothing about the subject matter or person could benefit from knowing?

But wow, what a 'fun' experience this has been.

There have been some incredibly generous helpful editor comments here too thankfully but seriously some are invoking images in my head of the incel comic book guy from the simpsons living in their mothers basements and its tarting to get creeped out.

I would think that someone who has played with members of the Clash, Rose Tattoo, One Way System, You Am I plus his own bands would be unquestionably 'notable' for just those reasons alone.

Maybe I should try stand-up comedy and get my own wiki page.. maybe not. Goodnight. 157.211.89.132 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few new scans at the top of the 'further reading' section of interviews with Shakir from Australian and UK magazines regarding his project and band The Howlin' MoonDoggies that should hopefully show his notability WP:SIGCOV. If anyone feels like adding inline citations using those scans in the bio section or references section then please do? Thanks in advance.

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Visual arts education#United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [36], [37] and [38]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Visual arts education#United Kingdom: While I understand its impact on education is immense, I don't see enough significant coverage from reliable sources regarding this organization to establish its notability. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?: If coverage by the schools is not enough for a dedicated article... would merging, with a redirect, to Visual_arts_education#United_Kingdom be most appropriate? ArtDataArt (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Visual arts education#United Kingdom per WP:ATD. @ArtDataArt, BerryForPerpetuity, Alpha3031, Oaktree b what about this option? 4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support a merge to there. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown, Allen County, Indiana

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

Again the local history comes trough with the goods: this was another town built on speculation that the railroad was going to bring business, except that the railroad went somewhere else instead, and the place quickly failed. There's no trace of it now or as far back as I can see in aerials and toposl indeed, it only got into GNIS (and thence on the topo) from a state highway map. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a few homes there on Google Maps, nothing like a significant town though. Google News does not provide evidence of notability. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Vietnam football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Unanimously deleted in the first AFD. Therefore echoing User:Spiderone's words from then; "I can't find much to support the existence of this rivalry, let alone its notability. See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and GNG needs to be met. In this case, it doesn't appear to be met." Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Football, Thailand, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I know the rivalry exists to some degree since they are both members of the EAFF, even if it's not Thailand's main rivalry (it seems to be against Indonesia). Svartner (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are at least two references in the current version that directly discuss the rivalry: The New Mandala article (which is actually more about the nationalist background to the conflict) and the Fox Sports Asia article reproduced by Seasia. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Both teams are members of the ASEAN Football Federation and had officially faced each other 55 times since 1956. Both teams had established a long rivalry due to them being close to each other geographically, and since they frequently face each other in the important games of regional tournaments such as SEA Games or the AFF Championship. The match between both teams is considered as the "El Classico of ASEAN". References about this rivalry in English may be limited, but in Thai or Vietnamese, the number of references covering this subject is immense. For example, in Vietnamese : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . During the press conference for friendly game between Vietnam and Thailand in September, Vietnam national team coach Kim Sang-sik also said "The relationship between Vietnam and Thailand is a rivalry like the one between South Korea and Japan, it's a regional rivalry." 7. - Lâm (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman, I pointed out two sources in the article and Lâm mentioned several Vietnamese sources above. It would be nice if you explained why you think they contribute no evidence of notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Paul 012 could you help find references for this subject in Thai as well? It would be a great addition to the article alongside the sources in Vietnamese. Lâm (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please justify the sources you say are GNG. Giant Snowman 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the sources I've mentioned above: Source 1 from VnExpress talks about the matches between both teams since the 1990s; source 2 from Tổ quốc talks about the similar topic; source 4 also talks about the head to head history of both teams and mentioned "the match between Vietnam and Thailand always creates attraction for fans because in almost all tournaments in Southeast Asia, Vietnam and Thailand are often considered rivals"; source 5 The article talks about the actions of the match between Vietnam and Thailand in the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification is showing why the game is called the "ASEAN Clasico" match 6.

I also found other sources outside Vietnamese press. The Asian Football Confederation called this game "ASEAN derby" in this article. In this article about the match review between Vietnam and Thailand, FIFA mentions that the "clash is capturing the imagination across the region and beyond, due to the long-standing rivalry between the south-east Asians". This BBC article here in Vietnamese also calls Thailand as Vietnam's rivalry. In an interview with So Foot, Thai international Tristan Do said "There is an extreme rivalry between the countries of Southeast Asia and especially between Thailand and Vietnam." Lâm (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lam.As per thiss: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've checked all the sources provided by Lâm above and they clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chill Out Project

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

One of a set of Walled garden articles, of a series of seemingly non-notable compilation albums, all created by the same mostly single-purpose account. These being form the Philippines may cause some problems, but in my before I could find no coverage to suggest these pass WP:NALBUMS. I also can't find anything on the series (The Chillout Project) and so don't think a redirect there would be an appropriate alternative. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the rest of the entries in this series because, as I said above they all were created by the same SPA and all don't appear to suffer the same lack of coverage:
The Lounge Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: House Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: House Sessions 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: Sisters of the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: Acid Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Chillout Project (different from The Chill Out Project) is another entry in this series, seemingly the main album article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerryForPerpetuity (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've just nominated the 5 albums that have articles thus far. As I said in the nom, I couldn't find anything on the series as a whole either so don't imagine it's anymore notable than the albums, but I didn't want to bundle too much in here. Articles for the other two albums (Soundtrack to Modern City Life and The Chillout Project: House Sessions 3 House Sessions 3) were separately redirected to the series article in 2024 and 2013 respectively (See also this 2010 AFD on House Sessions 3). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been unable to find any reliable-source coverage of any of them. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I couldn't find sufficient sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Danners430 (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worplesdon railway station

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

Article wholly unsourced Danners430 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Danners430 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BEFORE clearly not followed, see this and this as well. Probably more besides, and I'm going to keep working on it anyway Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the process was followed - I did a search for sources, but as someone who knows very little about this particular area of the country, I was unable to find anything. Thank you for providing the sources that were needed, and which I was unable to find. Danners430 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Some refs now added, Mattdaviesfsic beat me to it! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault

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

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article seems properly sourced. I would also support a merge to some relevant article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Public art depicting Donald Trump," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Will anybody remember these that didn't live in Philly or Portland in a week? A month? A year? Grahaml35 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, Indiana

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

Appears to be a rail spot: right now it's overrun by sprawl from Louisville but go back into the 1950s and there's nothing there but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's magazine

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine

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

Page was created by an editor with an initial undisclosed conflict of interest (they have since identified themselves as a paid freelancer), and appears to be solely maintained by that editor (who continues to engage in a business relationship with the organization). Company also fails the notability test. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject seems to have some notability however they lack WP:RS to stand, also the article is not written in an encyclopaedic format. Tesleemah (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comstock's magazine has been published monthly for 35 years. A decade ago its 25 anniversary was [recognized] by Doris Matsui in the United States House of Representatives in 2014. It's been written up in major news outlets including The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento Business Journal, The Fresno Bee and Elko Daily Free Press. The website Newspapers.com brings up 535 mentions of the magazine. The magazine's stories have been cited as sources in at least 30 Wikipedia articles. It's a provisional member of the California News Publishers Association and has won awards from that organization along with the Western Publishing Association. All that together makes it meet the notability requirement. Eric Schucht (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Eric Schucht was the creator of the article, and created it without disclosing himself as a paid contributor to Comstock's, which he has since affirmed. Schucht is not an impartial source, which is one element Wikipedia is supposed to weigh when gauging notoriety. Interesting, while he has since affirmed himself to have a conflict of interest, he chose not to disclose his COI when voting to keep the article. Accordingly, his vote should be discarded. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eric was also reprimanded by a Wikipedia editor for disclosing potentially-revealing information about a Wikipedia editor that, if true, would reveal the identity of said editor, in violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment and anti-doxing policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish clear notability even after discounting the sources that come from the magazine itself. Article is problematic in too many ways, and its creator and primary editor has apparently engaged in some inappropriate shenanigans. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a historic magazine, please judge the notability of the subject, not the editor who created the article. If any COI can be remedied by editing than deletion isn't the best solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 7 is fine, but the rest of the wiki article is strictly using the same RS over and over, 20, 22 and 25 are all the Business Journal. Multiple articles in the same publication (while a RS), isn't notable and seems to indicate this is only a local matter. There is no sort of coverage outside of the area of publication... I don't see notability. I also suspect there is PROMO going on with the undisclosed COI editing that was going on. That's also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perukua

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/GNG.

Apparent WP:GAMENAME of title (phonetic spelling). See [39] and [40] KH-1 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so many albums but does not seem to have much commercial success. Less than 200 Google Search results for Perukua Less than 70 Google Search results for "Peruquois Frances". This is not someone who is especially popular. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Beck

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

No indication of meeting WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional. Tagged as problematic for 11 years. Did release an album Ultrafetter Bass in 2023, which has only barely been able to break 1,000 Spotify plays; also, only has a couple hundred followers on Facebook. (These being indicators of non-notability.) Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Searched Google News, got three results of only brief mentions. [41] [42] [43] (last article is paywalled but seems to be more about the band]. Also his band Boppin' B does not have a page here. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellbirds

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

Corresponding to the tag that has been sitting on the page for 11 years, it looks like they completely fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only four news articles on the band, and each only gives them a mention, no in-depth coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not get close to WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. The references in the article do not establish notability for the band with the scanty discussion of the subject. Mekomo (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but previous commenters need to be less sloppy in their appraisal. This source^[1] from the article can comfortably considered "in-depth coverage". However that is really all I can find. This band appears to be a side-project of some otherwise notable musicians, so perhaps could just be mentioned as such on their individual articles. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bellbirds are in song", Stuff, 2010-10-20, archived from the original on 2017-08-12, retrieved 2024-11-13

Delete: Fails WP:NBAND. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources covering the company. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - Most of these sources were evaluated in the previous deletion discussion. However, I evaluated them a second time to either confirm that assessment or not.

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.

2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.

3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.

5. LiveMint - Same as 2.

6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.

7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT

8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:ROUTINE. We need sources passing WP:ORGCRIT. Please review that guideline and let me know what sources meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After the source assessment and inquiries about additional sources that may meet WP:ORGCRIT, there is only one I see that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 I am not sure how you are passing some information as routine coverage. In some earlier sources, there was extensive profile coverage of Groww. I am starting to think now that few Wikipedia reviewers has some inherent bias and that is why there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is also why Wikipedia has been involved in lawsuits:-> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece

The classification of some credible information as non-reliable is not good. Even then I will provide another source from Business Standard :-> https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/financial-services-startup-groww-moves-domicile-to-india-from-the-us-124051000028_1.html --Curvasingh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS certainly does not support your keep !vote contention. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing source assessment by CNMall41 and self evaluation of the sources, it is clear that the page fails WP:NCORP and fails all criteria for an organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Editors wanting to Keep this article need to respond to User:CNMall41's source analysis which dismisses most of the sources you thought were valid and reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another ORG article refbombed to pretend to be notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational as the issues raised in the first and second AFDs remain unresolved. Almost all the sources presented in the previous AFDs are still being presented in this current discussion. Those sources are unreliable. Mekomo (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

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

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo[reply]
Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL says that politician holding national or state/province wide office is presumed to be notable and being a hereditary ruler of a state is a state/province-wide political office. Wikipedia:Notability says that the article topic has to meet either GNG OR subject-specific notability guideline including WP:NPOL and it does not have to meet both. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NPOL says nothing about hereditary royalty. It covers politicians and judges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article topic is a ruler. All rulers are politicians by definition. They wield political powers and make policies for the lands and subjects under their rule. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cited refs fail to constitute WP:SIGCOV, focused on the Jhala clan, but barely mention Jhala Ajja's leadership in any depth. Despite examining the Refs of Dr. R.P. Shastri, G Sharma, and Ram Vallabh Somani, insufficient information exists to establish Ajja Jhala's notability, contravening Wikipedia's GNG Guideline. Useroppa (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) — Useroppa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not quite finding the level of decent sourcing we'd expect... Some mentions of the individual, but I don't think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Party for Socialism and Liberation as a valid ATD. There's a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, but I saw no convincing argument against keeping it as a redirect, for which our retention standards are much lower. If any specific revision violates policy, it can be REVDELed, and if there are persistent, unjustified attempts to revert this close, please ping me or any admin to protect the page. The target already has a section about the subject, but this close is without prejudice against a selective, WP:DUE-compliant merge of sourced content. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis by Red-tailed hawk. However, I find the suggestion that it would be too difficult to edit the work and therefore we should WP:TNT ridiculous. The article is currently less than 1500 characters, making it technically WP:STUB length. How hard is re-working such a tiny article? We can totally fix it without much effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Daily Beast is a marginal RS [44]. I don't think we have enough RS to keep at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any opinion on Red-tailed hawk's source analysis above? إيان (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Oaktree is reading this in light of the sources above, he's saying that he leans towards deletion because The Daily Beast is marginally reliable, the Jerusalem Post source and the NCRI source aren't enough. And, if we don't treat The Daily Beast as reliable, I'd think his view reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ 4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Motutapu (disambiguation)

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

Only two link and a lot of redlink. More at Wikipedia:Disambiguation$Deletion. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very premature proposal for a dab page only created an hour ago. Three blue links, and created to combat confusion between them. As to the other red links, they may well be filled soon. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could not be solved by one hatnote. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid dab page. PamD 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But needs some more blue links added, or redlink-only entries removed. PamD 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the dab page has some links already and it will possibly continue to grow given that this dab is a recent creation. Mekomo (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There's a lot of articles in the DAB Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted KEmel49's close of this, which combined a withdrawal of the nomination in the same edit. Because of this, I reverted as it was an WP:INVOLVED closure and formatted incorrectly. @KEmel49: - please only indicate a withdrawal (if you remain willing to do so), another editor or admin will close as appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Goldsztajn: You need to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination. The nominator's actions appear to have been correct. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Shhhnotsoloud - thanks for the ping. In this case, I saw a number of problems here and elsewhere and felt it was best to encourage the editor to focus on participating in AfD discussions rather than involving themself in other aspects of AfD at this point. FWIW, in regards to withdrawals, I'd argue that there's a potential contradiction between WP:WDAFD and WP:INVOLVED. While it might be less of an issue for experienced editors, to my mind, WDAFD only mentions "may" (not should) and INVOVLED takes precedence as a ~~principle~~ policy to be applied with vigour. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Deorah College

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found, so the subject fails to meet GNG, and thus also fails WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gauhati University to which this college is affiliated as WP:ATD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to remove this... Goswami21 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is about an institution which is 40 years old. It looks like it does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts and I believe there are various sources available, which can be considered as Significant coverage. It’s just that the creator didn’t try to find and use them as inline citations.Zuck28 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Please provide those Significant coverage sources here, so others can evaluate those sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1., 2., 3., 4 Apart from this, I was unable to find other sources, as I am not familiar with Guwahati region media and language.

Zuck28 (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: I really don’t understand how you consider these to be significant coverage. Government and college websites are WP:PRIMARY sources and contribute nothing towards notability. The other two sources you provided are merely passing mentions. You should read WP:SIGCOV to understand what constitutes significant coverage. To meet notability guidelines, the subject should have at least two articles from independent and reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage, not just passing mentions. GrabUp - Talk 09:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged the article with WP:G12 because it was copied from the college’s website. GrabUp - Talk 10:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman Pool

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

Entirely non-notable location. I both heavily appreciate CyberTheTiger's work to expand coverage of Madison and think it's really cool, but this specific article – while competently made – falls severely short of notability guidelines. The information in it really would be better served as an attraction on the Wikivoyage page for Madison. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation as a good ATD; an otherwise average public pool. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf: I could go either way for a deletion or simply a redirect. A redirect is inoffensive, and the target you suggested makes perfect sense. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Solo Leveling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solo leveling: Unlimited

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

Insufficient differentiation from parent article Solo Leveling; should be merged into that article. The sources given are also insufficiently reliable and do not prove notability per WP:RS. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Looks like this is a video game? Or a digital business? The crypto-specific websites are bewildering to me, I am not sure what their status would be as RS's. A few of the Korean-language sources are also crypto-focused and therefore probably currently unvetted. Currently, this article is suggesting that the 2018 webtoon is an adaptation, presumably of the 2024 game, which is very odd. Oddities in the writing aside, I'm mostly concerned about the quality of the sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the creator attempted to get this article passed as a draft but was turned down each time. Draft:Solo leveling : Unlimited. Eventually, they went ahead and made it into a full article while skipping draft approval. seefooddiet (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solo Leveling. No differentiable content for it to deserve its own page so a redirect works well enough,

MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent Solo Leveling as the best option to retain some of the information presented here. Mekomo (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chamars

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

The article lacks proper citations and references to support the claims made. Also, some of the member may not belongs to Chamars. Nxcrypto Message 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:RS and even fails to meet general notability guidelines.

Edasf (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it’s premature to nominate this article for deletion since it’s only a day old. A more constructive approach would be to add the relevant issue tags (one which already there), which will inform readers of the areas that need improvement and give the article a chance to be enhanced per WP:AQU, WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Wikipedia articles have no grandson clause. This could have been created in draft space, and it wasn't, so now it's meeting its fate as it must. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not mine, not that Wikipedia's either. "That's not how it works," keep in mind there are many ways it can work, and what I suggested is one of them. Draftifying is not a thing of the past, it’s still an option. Also, "delete" is not the only possible outcome in nomination discussions. There are other paths to consider. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article would probably fail NLIST. Per WP:CASTEID, there needs to be self-identification of caste which needs to be reported by reliable sources. It will likely be difficult to find relevant reliable sources that discuss the list topic as a group, especially when many may be discounted due to a lack of self-identification. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected all the information through all the sources and of his book and i clarify that all the peoples in this page belong to chamars and i added all the references so you can check the article and i kindly request you to remove the notice for deletion MY Gohad (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not needed WP:FORK of Chamar. We already have a list of "notable people" in that article. There is no need for separate list.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is, again, no consensus to keep, delete, redirect, or merge this article. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miroshnichenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a PR platform. Refbombed spam for non notable individual. Has a massive primary sourced laundry list of so called awards but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). Last Afd closed no consensus largely on the validity of the Independent Music Awards (IMAs) (now deleted) but they are not a major award and are not even a notable award. None of the many listed charts are GOODCHARTS. Refbombed sources lack independent coverage in reliable sources. Curated by a single SPA who despite being blocked is still updating this PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the International Songwriting Competition confer notability? The article for the award has a few citations to RS calling it "prestigious", mostly the Irish newspaper article... Not sure about notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol 'prestigious' is a word that barely exists outside press releases - if you see it in a news item it's a giveaway that the piece is probably churnalism. Things which are genuinely prestigious (Nobel, Emmy etc.) are never described as 'prestigious'. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is an Irish newspaper? Good to know! ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability here. Other than the 2024 "win", this is still the same quality of biography we saw during the last round at AfD. I've read up a bit more on these "awards", they don't seem terribly important. Nor do most of the charted albums/songs hit on charts that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about Roman Miroshnichenko is included in The Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopedia, edited by Scott Yanow. --Yakudza (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep In duo with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, Roman Miroshnichenko has won the Best Jazz Award of the USA Songwriting Contest: serious world-class achievement mentioned in the top news of All About Jazz - the largest jazz portal in the world. Also, he is a Guinness Records holder, which is more than a notable award. Along with John Williams, Allan Silvestry, and Hans Zimmer, he was the nominee for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Not a big deal, too? He has recorded with the London Symphony at Abbey Road studio, just think for a moment. He is also a Recording Academy/Grammy Voting Member, where only outstanding musicians and experts are allowed. He is the winner of the Film Music Contest, the largest competition in media music in Europe. These are just undeniable facts that can make less fortunate colleagues nervous. All facts are in the public domain.

DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The previous AFD did close a No Consensus which might be the case here, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do agree that the article is very obnoxious and and been refbombed to hell(98 references!?). It could probably use some work to move towards a more neutral view, to read the article would make you think this guy is one of the best musicians in the world. But I do believe he barely passes GNG. Winning the international songwriting competition and the article in The great Jazz guitarists certainly help, although are not too well known. The fact that he has won so many awards speaks to his notability even though most are quite unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winning so many awards speaks more to his entering so many contests and to his skills. Ability does not make one notable unless it receives independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ He has truly made his mark on the music world. Teaming up with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, he recntly won the Best Jazz Award at the USA Songwriting Contest, a big honor that even made headlines on All About Jazz, the world's largest jazz portal. His list of achievements keeps growing: he's a Guinness World Record holder, a Grammy Voting Member, and has even been nomnated for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards alongside John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Hans Zimmer. He's also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra at the iconic Abbey Road Studios and took home the top prize in Europe's biggest media music competition - the Film Music Contest. It's safe to say that Miroshnichenko's accomplishments speak for themselves.
DiscursivePraxis (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not only is voting twice not allowed, editors are not allowed to use block evading socks to vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding 2-3 independent and substantial sources. First, the IMAs web site is no longer in existence, so we can scratch that as a major award. The Global Music Awards are a Pay-Fer award in which everybody seems to win at least bronze, and it runs 4x a year. The HMMA are also pay-fer, and likely self-nomination. The Jazz Corner is a crowd-sourced fan site. Songwriting Competition is another pay-fer. AllAboutJazz site (cited multiple times but not named in citation) allows artists to pay to advertise or have articles about them, for $$. Basically, this guy enters every inexpensive contest, uses all of the available promotion sites. Bravo! as a self-promoter. Lamona (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grasmmy Awards 92.243.182.120 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the winners and nominees of most of the above awards in article are such world stars as Jason Mraz (USASC), Meghan Trainor (USASC), Al Di Meola (USASC), Ian Anderson (USASC), Gino Vanelli (USASC), Jami Alimorad (USASC), Dave Koz, Paul Wertico, George Benson, Foreigner, Hans Zimmer (HMMA), John Williams (HMMA), Alan Silvestri (HMMA), Carlos Santana (HMMA), Lady Gaga (HMMA). Are they "self-nomintaed" and "pay-fer" too? It is also worth noting that the Grammys also have many self-nominated artists and there is an option to pay for entry from 45 to 150 USD depending on the proximity of the deadline. Most of the above awards are listed on ASCAP's list of the most notable and influential music competitions and awards: ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions

Not to mention the Guinness World Record, the encyclopedia "Great Jazz Guitarists" published by the largest book distributor Hal Leonard and the many celebrities with whom this truly outstanding world-class guitarist performed. (Just a note that this comment was made by User:92.243.182.120. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

The ASCAP page lists "songwriting competitions" which "...provide networking opportunities and inspiration for your work." It says nothing about them being notable, influential, or important. Lamona (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist has more than enough regalia. An article in the encyclopedia "Great Jazz Guitarists" and a Guinness record holder are enough. Not to mention sharing the podium with celebrities as a nominee and winner of significant international music competitions and awards: HMMA, USASC, ISC.

Confirmed on iMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm12855543/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1 92.243.182.120 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, nothing can be confirmed on IMDB - it is not a reliable source. Second, Guinness appears to have given an award for the most guitarists, of which he was one of over 7,000. I do not have the GBR for 2014, but I seriously doubt if he was singled out for mention. The entry in Great Jazz Guitarists shows up in 2 snippets, while (for comparison) Django Reinhardt has 56 snippets. He shared no podium with celebrities, but even if he had notability is not established by who you stand next to. I will also state that while potentially satisfying for the musician, nominations for awards are not generally considered notable. The "Silver" award for the Global Music Awards for 2022 and 2023 have more than 100 silver winners. It isn't clear if there was anyone who applied for this that did not get an award. I still don't see anything that would meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Global Music Awards Gold Medal. Just 9 Winners of hundreds: https://www.globalmusicawards.com/honorees/november-2022

2. HMMA Nominee among celebrities: https://www.allaboutjazz.com/news/roman-miroshnichenko-henrik-andersen-and-trilok-gurtu-nominated-in-the-hollywood-music-in-media-awards/

3. The Great Jazz Guitarists Encyclopedia, edited by one of jazz's most influential historians Scott Yannow, is not pulp fiction. Hal Leonard doesn't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Yanow

p.s. It is probably necessary to be less superficial and biased. 92.243.182.120 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a winner of made up in one day awards for an up and coming but ultimately never make it to prime time musician. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the entry in the jazz guitarist encyclopedia cited above that is written by Scott Yanow; a notable jazz hitorian. Under WP:5P1 we model our coverage off of published encyclopedias, including specialist encyclopedias. With a published encyclopedia entry on this person, its clearly a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Bellbirds are in song", Stuff, 2010-10-20, archived from the original on 2017-08-12, retrieved 2024-11-13

[1]