Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

1 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

G.E.D Inc.

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

(removed WP:PROD) No sources showing WP:CORP is met. DJ Vlad interview the deprodder added also doesn't count for that guideline. Mach61 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ai sponge

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

I don't think this has very lasting notability - multiple of the sources used are listed as unreliable on WP:VGRS and WP:RS/PS.

In particular:

Dexerto is noted as a "tabloid publication" on VGRS
TheGamer is noted as a "situational source" on VGRS (see: WP:VALNET)
Cracked.com is noted as "generally unreliable" on RS/PS
Medium is a self-published source (see: WP:MEDIUM)

The news coverage of this was also very brief, as no reliable source exists for the discontinuation of the livestream, as well as a lack of reliable sources for Uberduck in general. Also note that the article's creator has been blocked for edit warring. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Technology, and Internet. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda High School, Alkapuri

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Gujarat. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outfolded

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

This article falls just short of the general notability guideline. After a WP:BEFORE search, I had found a couple articles from reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. However, the last three sources do not contain significant coverage of the article's subject. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Softonic also gave it a review. I think there's just enough here to indicate the game got recognized by mainstream sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second. Is Softonic a reliable source? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be trustworthy, has full editorial guidelines, and forbids AI created reviews. If you have evidence that it's not reliable you are free to discuss it in WP:VG/S, but I can't see why it should be excluded from being an RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: Springbok Challenge 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 4

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 3

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bayme

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

Delete or redirect to American Jewish Committee as WP:ATD. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of Bayme's work for AJC. Academic work and standing is not significantly impactful. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 8

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 6

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wandu Bimo

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

BLP with self published and unreliable sources, mixed with fake citation that does not support most of what is written on the article, and what is factually is from a self-published source. As for notability, does not meet any of the notability criteria for a musician FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sudan, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 5

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

Relies entirely on the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Reilly

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

Not Significant enough. Evolvedtyrant (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 7

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

Article relies entirely upon the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandidos MC support clubs

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

Only a few of these have their own articles, and the rest of them are cited mainly to their own webpages. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I recommend this article be deleted due to the list not having a claim to notability. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due West (band)

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

I wanted to help improve the references for this article, but I found only their own social media, a small news article about a local event, and interviews (i.e. non-independent sources) with the band. If someone else can do better and improve the article, I am very happy with that outcome! But I can not find any criteria in wp:band that they seem to fit. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Fourth of July shootings

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

Article reads like a press release and does not show any signs of lasting notability. Seems like WP:SYNTH is violated. Also note there was a similar article that was deleted last year. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no connection to any of these shootings other than the fact that the took place on the Fourth of July. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear sufficiently notable. FactorNews article alone seems below significant coverage and Sébastien Delahaye reflection mentions their FTP server. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and France. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem like reliable/significant coverage. Searched for sources in French & English and cannot find any (except blogs) either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant perception (paranormal)

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

There is no such thing as paranormal plant perception, this is not an independent field of research and the article is misleading as what the article describes is the "Backster effect". Most of the sourcing on the article refers to Cleve Backster. He is the only person in history to hold such ideas. The majority of this article is just citing Backster's experiments which is mostly duplicated material from his own Wikipedia article. There is a main article on plant cognition. I suggest that this article should be deleted and any information if needed in the "research" section of the article can be merged into Cleve Backster's own Wikipedia article which also contains criticism of his experiments. This article serves no purpose.

The two recently added single lines on the article about Jainism and Manichaeism are off-mission and belong on the plant soul article which is a religious belief. I suggest the article to be deleted and redirected to Cleve Backster. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the nominated page is about stuff that is WP:FRINGE. But the pagename is the right name for that kind of stuff. On the other hand, the plant cognition page mentioned by the nominator is equally fringe. It makes the counter-scientific assumption that tropism and related kinds of plant responses to environmental stimuli are equivalent to cognition. For this reason, I believe that the nominated page should be kept, and a lot of rewriting is, instead, needed. Plant cognition should be largely merged into the page nominated here, rather than the other way around. Some parts of the cognition page are actually based on real physiology, and should be merged, instead, into the physiology page (and any non-scientific stuff there should be relocated in the opposite direction). So, while I agree with the nominator that we do not need both the paranormal and the cognition page, the one that should really be deleted (well, actually, just made into a redirect via a merge) is actually the cognition page. The paranormal page should be kept as the page that covers the various counter-scientific ideas that have been promoted over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Room

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. mikeblas (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aresu Rabbani

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for activists. As always, activists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third party media coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary source content on the self-published websites and/or social networking accounts of organizations directly affiliated with the subject, which are not support for notability.
There are just two hits of third-party media coverage shown here, of which one is clearly WP:GNG-worthy and one is debatable, but even if we grant the debatable one the benefit of the doubt it still takes more than just two GNG-worthy sources to get a person over GNG.
This may, further, be an WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by a virtual WP:SPA named "AresuGeography", but people aren't entitled to create their own articles about themselves on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Afghanistan, and Switzerland. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GM Modular

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

I don’t think this meets the WP:NCORP criteria, as it only has routine coverage and lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Baqi:) (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Baqi:) (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm only finding routine coverage, nothing significant. Surprising, sine it seems like a big enough outfit, but ... -- mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [6] and Apple [7] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [8] [9] [10].

Book references are also forthcoming: [11] [12] [13] [14]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naufal Ahmad

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

There aren't much to establish notability. Likely doesn't meet WP:BASIC. There are these: [15][16][17][18] but they seem to be routine press releases and I'm not sure if they're reliable. Frost 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hurtz

AfDs for this article:

(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) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ward (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) 14:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Payne (darts)

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Heard

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, England, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stephenson

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Capewell

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

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

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qurna (Iraq War)

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

Possible hoax. Unsourced. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Denmark, Lithuania, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a complete hoax, possibly just overblown. I spent a decent amount of time trying to determine if this was a real battle or not, and basically came up empty. It is possible, likely even, that at some point there was some sort of contact between insurgents in the vicintiy of Al-Qurna and Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq) personell that led to combat action, but at best "battle of Qurna" seems like an exaggeration. This war was covered extensively by the international media, and this article alleges ten coalition fatalities and nearly thirty more wounded, but there are zero sources that confirm this. When we can't confirm an event happened, we should not cover that event. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Kannauj War

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

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.

Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf «Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf «Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf «Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf «Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf «Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:
- p. 125
  In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.
- p. 124
  But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.
The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf «Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:
p. 126
On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf «Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf «Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf «Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm exactly talking about the "full quote" in the source. Garudam ^Talk! 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well I have reviewed the sources itself. The topics outrightly fails SIGCOV and the issue of HOAX remains, this topic should have been rather included in parent pages, say Pushyabhuti dynasty but I don't think it clears the certain criterias to have a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam The HOAX is already cleared by Ixudi stop repeating reasonings and again Wars tend to have separate article it helps clear confusion and correct all your signatures above since you changed name and coverage matter. Edasf «Talk» 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of back and forth, but very few participants. Additional opinions would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, WP:BLP, and no WP:LASTING. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this should be Keep. Prominent newspapers and news channels have extensively discussed the subject in detail. The coverage significantly (WP:SIGCOV) highlights the individual's identity and contributions, making it relevant and noteworthy for further consideration. Baqi:) (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes kindly provide proper rationale and sources which you believe satisfies the GNG and SIGCOV criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage past 2017, nothing that I can find either past that date. Could be a few words in an article about the war in Syria but nothing of lasting notability. He was featured in flurry of media, then faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VoxelStorm

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the company itself. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boakye-Danquah

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

Non-notable businessman. Almost all sources are about his family or projects - no significant coverage. No reliable sources were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and Ghana. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be many, an extensive article has been published (as referenced) regarding his appointment as an ambassador for an internationally recognized organization. The legitimacy of his nobility, if relevant, is beyond question. How many publications would be considered "enough" in this context? This article was never about a celebrity to begin with. Moreover, there are numerous nobles with Wikipedia articles solely due to their lineage, despite making little to no impact themselves.

How often do publications feature African personalities in depth, beyond narratives centered on poverty? Efforts like this deserve recognition. Everyone begins their journey somewhere, at their own level. This article should not be dismissed as irrelevant—it represents a significant achievement, not just for an individual, but for an entire continent. AkakomPrincess1 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the article published about him by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, there are numerous references from reliable Ghanaian newspapers that establish his role as a business developer for facilitatiing the Ghana Innovative Housing Project. Furthermore, a reference from the "house of innovations" recognizes him as a business developer in Europe. These points, in my view, provide ample relevance beyond his family ties. 2A01:6BC0:2:F1:1:0:3:543C (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus should be on the „appointment“ to this new role and not what he was before. I see no issues here. 2A01:599:A09:BBE0:8882:787:3002:120F (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable business person, ambassador to the chamber of commerce is more of a business position than anything political. Coverage is PR items or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfor Rahaman

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

Non-notable author. The only source is a Goodreads page of one of his books, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup winning players

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

The effort here is amazing but this is clearly against WP:NOTDIR. If it was a list of players whose name was engraved onto the Stanley Cup, that would make sense. However, this is a list of players which also includes players who did not even play in the series or made a brief appearences. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Ice hockey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, convert the page to players whose names are engraved on the Stanley Cup. I understand, from the talk page of this article, there is an article in progress: User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup. That would make more sense, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India

AfDs for this article:

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

Although it has been tagged for notability for over a year, I could not find substantial coverage to meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The book lacks independent reviews, and according to the nominator, the article has long-standing notability issues. Therefore, I don't believe this article meets the criteria outlined in WP:NBOOK. Baqi:) (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeda Awards

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

No evidence of notability for this award. The underlying Takeda Foundation is a redlink (has never been blue). The organization's listed webpage [19] does not list any activity since 2006. That site's lists of awards only include 2001 and 2002 and notes that the award programs are suspended as of 2003. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

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

after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Falls WP:GNG. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would come in at number 10 at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for longest extant hoax articles if proven to be a hoax.

Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny.
While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).

My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.

Thanks for your interest.

Link to Telefilm Canada funding announcement: [20]https://telefilm.ca/en/telefilm-canada-funds-the-production-of-20-feature-length-documentaries-in-the-english-market

Link to DOC-NYC Voices of Canada Industry Roundtable 2023: [21]https://www.docnyc.net/industry-roundtables/ Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Passes WP:ANYBIO as the winner of a Genie Award.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Tata Memorial Trust

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

One of several Trusts listed on the Tata Group page, none of which appear to be notable. This particular one I cannot locate any significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

What makes the topic notable is the following information about the Trust:

"The Lady Tata Memorial Trust was one of the earliest philanthropic trusts created to support world-wide leukaemia research. Very little was known about leukaemia at the time of the establishment of the Trust. The Trust provided fellowships and grants to some of the leading international researchers and contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia."

Even though there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain, in my view, the topic is hugely notable because of the fact that the Trust "has contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia". So, I strongly oppose the move to delete the article. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the WP:BEFORE assessment with "there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain." Unfortunately, significant coverage is required so having little information is not going to support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment (systems)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this defines a term, but it seems unlikely that it can be expanded beyond "In thermodynamics, *heat* can sometimes be exchanged with the environment". I doubt there is a meaningful history of the concept that "the thing you study interacts with the things around it in some approximated way". There are currently no sources and Google searches (for obvious) reasons do not turn up relevant ones per WP:BEFORE. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^فث ^{Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Absolutiva (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now. Not sure WP:CRYSTALBALL is an appropriate rationale, as per Mims Mentor, it is almost undoubtedly going to happen with early stages and nominations already in progress. I wouldn't be opposed to a keep either though, although imo I would probably wait a while for more sources before it being moved back to mainspace. Procyon117 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Redirect to the main Miss Universe article. Too soon and this article is not yet ready because most of the necessary details (e.g., specific date, venue, participants, etc.) are not yet confirmed or announced. Vida0007 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Miss World 2025's page can be up and running without a date and venue, I don't see why Miss Universe 2025's can't be as well. Since there are contestants who are confirmed and have sources to back up that they will be competing at Miss Universe 2025, I think that should be enough to keep the article. I also don't think WP:CRYSTAL BALL applies here because it's not like we're making an article for Miss Universe 2040, it's the next edition that candidates are already starting to be chosen for. Rararawr21 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this is leaning towards not keeping this in mainspace. But I don't see consensus for any specific outcome yet, whether it be deletion, draftification, or otherwise. Relisting to obtain more discussion around particular outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if it can't be kept, then I think draftification is warranted. This will almost certainly happen and there will be more sources coming in the near future as more contestants get crowned so I don't think deletion is the way to go. Rararawr21 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know it isn't kosher to !vote in an AfD that I started. I just want to make it clear that, if the draftification wasn't contested, I would've draftified it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Chief: Subic Bay

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

Film has a single source and upon quick search on Google there is no quality citations yet. The film has unknown filming status. See WP:NFF. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the trailer for the film upon your Google search.... Moviebuffguy408 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The article is too soon, and more sources will likely become available upon the film's release. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Same as CanonNi, the article is too soon, but more sources may become available in the future. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Novos Negócios

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.

This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Brazil. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are all independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS with editorial staff; some of them covering the demise of the project. These include independent green technology magazines, mainstream media like CNET and KFMB-TV, national magazines like Popular Mechanics etc. These sources have by-lined authors and address the subject directly and in detail. The source analysis by the nominator is off.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sourcing, the Car and Driver review currently in External Links is also a RS and is specifically about the Aptera 2. Being a "failed production model" is very much not a reason for deletion - notability is not temporary and a vehicle does not need to reach production to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA rookie single-season rebounding leaders

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

Appears to fail WP:NLIST; unable to find any independent secondary reliable sources discussing this list topic as a group or set in a WP:BEFORE search. It's possible this is tracked in stats databases, but such sources alone are insufficient in affirming wiki-notability. Left guide (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NLIST. There are individual sources that show the top three, but this list is the top 20 and I've not seen any to justify top 20, top 10, or even top 5. Conyo14 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Basketball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameRevolution

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

Half of this article is sourced from Game Revolution itself. Not seeing enough secondary sources on the site which makes this website appear to not be notable to get its own article. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Websites. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the sources, none of them clearly give reliable/significant/independent/secondary coverage. The only possible ones are the two sources (DMW & Reuters) discussing the purchase, but the coverage is not very significant, and the Reuters one is explicitly a press release, while the DMW one is very likely one anyways. Google books/regular search reveal no sources and there is no obvious reason why any should exist, given it's a minor gaming news source that features in awards sometimes. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SIGCOV, and lack of notability. Encoded Talk 💬 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandatory (company) per WP:ATD

IgelRM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Games in relief

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- this appears to be a term for a kind of game, with very limited encyclopedic possibilities. The citations added to the article on Hoyt Wilhelm have been added to his article, where his record was noted by not cited. The only other information is the definition of a game in relief, which has been merged to Relief pitcher, tagged with citation needed. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of baseball terms per WP:ATD. There is an entry on the term in this baseball encyclopedia where it is treated like it would be in a glossary.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and New York. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This 1914 book about the history of the college does go into the history of the fraternities at the school. College publications marketed to perspective college students feature the Greek life aspect of the school prominently: [22], [23], etc. Occasionally, the school gets mentions in academic studies on Greek Life like [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], Greek life is clearly an important part of this school's campus experience.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.

Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fibras Industriales S.A.

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

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to see whether support is for Merge, Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

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

I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not in fact properly cited. Two sources in a wall of text is not proper citation, as any college student should know. 30 paragraphs of text are completely unsourced, as are three long lists. I don’t mean to be rude, but anyone who’s ever read a Good Wikipedia article knows that this isn’t one. Please start over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. But without some policy-based reasons to Keep this article, it looks like it might be heading towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a dictionary definition article. Instead, it's a stub article on a tactical warfare concept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, we have an article on that concept already, close-quarters battle. If you are suggesting that a melee is different than close-quarters battle, you will need to explain how, because the article even admits they are the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Simply search "melee combat" and an additional modifier to weed out the computer game books. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am, unfortunately, drawing a blank on outside the tabletop and video game realm. Rather than saying "wow it's so obvious", it would assist if you explained fully how melee combat is not CQB, or at least is different enough for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard about close quarters combat until right now, but I could have told you that melee combat was close range medieval combat. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found several sources on the form of medieval tournament, but we've got Tournament (medieval)#Melee for that. Furthermore, Melee (tournament) is the former page for that. This page still seems superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was previously AfD'd back in 2015 for similar rationales to the nominator. I'd recommend giving it a read to avoid any restated arguments, especially since I'm seeing a few here from both sides already. I'm personally leaning to a deletion, and then having the DAB page made primary, but I'd like to see what extent of coverage the !Keep votes (@4meter4 and @SportingFlyer) are able to turn up before I make a final assessment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Magneton is, nor how it might be relevant here. Can you explain? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid concept. As the article itself points out, a close-quarters battle is not necessarily a melee and the article does not admit they are the same. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / replace with the disambiguation page. Not notable as a standalone topic separate from the other articles unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Nurg (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, there's already Melee (disambiguation). -- mikeblas (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments divided betwen Keep and Deleting it and moving a DAB page to this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that another relevant article is Hand-to-hand combat, which is essentially close-quarters combat, but without ranged weapons, and more focused on history, although a good part of it currently (emphasis) focuses on unarmed combat. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make disambiguation, which should include Hand-to-hand combat -- a melee appears to usually just mean "a chaotic hand-to-hand combat"; the only stipulation is the hand-to-hand combat article refers to close-range weapons only and not guns, etc. so the Close-quarters battle should also be linked because the phrase "a chaotic melee with guns" is valid. Current content of the article is largely an etymology (a very nice etymology, but it still belongs in a dictionary), and does not need to be merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee#Usage in gaming was merged from Melee (game terminology) and can be moved to ~~Glossary of video game terms~~Tabletop game or a relevant subtopic. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cihan Erdal

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

WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [34], [35], [36] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tornado

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

Not sure this one-off documentary from 2006 meets notability guidelines. Happy to be proven wrong but can't find it anywhere other than in directories and mirrors. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of environmental films per WP:ATD. On a side note, this was part of a series called Ultimate Disaster. It was second of four documentaries in this series.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 24 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) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [37] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [38]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [39]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 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) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

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

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:58, 24 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) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sources. The creator of this has been indef blocked "(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Numbers do not match citations...this is intentional.)" I didn't look through all his lists etc, but don't need to. The People's Republic of China has more than a billion population. It's not even reasonable to believe they could have only 7 generals. Also, there are different levels of generals within any military. — Maile (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the reasons above, and because we already have various articles that already list this material, just to give a couple of examples. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lalli

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former lacrosse player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, New Jersey, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know nothing about this sport but here are some more sources: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. I'll let others decide whether these count towards notability or not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your response. The first two are passing mentions and thus not significant coverage, while the next three are not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the article combined with the more than 100 sources covering him via Newspapers.com demonstrate that the notability standard is met as a professional athlete playing at the top level of his sport. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share any SIGCOV you might be able to find. JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes please bear in mind to provide sources with SIGCOV for better analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Johns Hopkins University student organizations

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of third party coverage of the list as a grouping, and also is a case of WP:NOTPROMO as this reads like promotional material for the school. PROD was removed with additional sources added but they appear to only be concerned with fraternities and sororities, not student organizations. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Fraternities and sororities, Lists, and Maryland. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a spinout from Johns Hopkins University, which is the subject of the article. The list approximates WP:CSC point 3. It's not clear that there is anything promotional here which cannot be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid creation given the size of the main article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least two secondary sources are included. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source for Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities[45], created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution. Furthermore, as mentioned above by others, the university itself has notability; this article is a spin-off that helps reduce the length of the institutional article and carries that notability with it. Rublamb (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nissrine Chaoudri

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

Non-notable artist. None of the sources are independent, and the article is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Morocco. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, no sourcing used that isn't primary. I can only find [46], she organized a festival. I don't see a listing in the Getty ULAN either [47]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G11, promotional with no kernel of notability to rescue under the promotion. No evidence of being in the collection of bluelinked museums or other accomplishments that might pass WP:NARTIST. I note that the version of the same article on the Spanish Wikipedia has recently been deleted as promotional and the French one has been proposed for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Subject seems to have no notability, seeing as the only sources to account for the individual are their own sources. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The 2nd source, Delhi-Magazine, is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state above voter misstates when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. GrabUp - Talk 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Wikipedia's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. GrabUp - Talk 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met even if INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by Jclemens.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from India Today appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is an RS? Taabii (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

chatbot-generated post

- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Wikipedia entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

- We want to keep the discussion among humans, and this preceding post looks like it was written by AI/language model. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage

- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chatbot-generated post

~~Keep~~striking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Wikipedia entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]