Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 9 November 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 08	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Mytton-Sanneh was part of UK boy band New Bounce that placed third in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Britain's Got Talent averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV; many lower-placing acts have Wikipedia pages, with Britain's Got Talent being their only source of notability. MJ Mytton-Sanneh has also been part of West End musicals such as Thriller Live (which toured the world) and has also featured on The X Factor. He absolutely is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I acknowledge that in recent years there is not as much notability—but any form of notability is worth a Wikipedia page, as it’s meant to be timeless.

After creating this article, I will also create the article for New Bounce, as they are missing a Wikipedia page SRR111 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GNG and MUSICIAN is failed here. Most of the (reliable) sources appear trivial or to fall under WP:1E. Also a plethora of... interesting sources, which isn't a deciding factor, but definitely doesn't help. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E - I would disagree with this. Thriller Live is an event, as is Britain's Got Talent (series 5), another event, and being part of Speechless (Michael Jackson song). He also was part of X Factor, which I haven't included yet, and in recent years was named BBC Music Introducing Artist of the Month. Certainly not one event, and this is a brief overview.

As I have previously mentioned, other lower-placing acts that I think actually do fall under WP:1E have Wiki articles, and yet there is no call for deletion—so why is this?

Additionally, using terms like "a plethora of… interesting sources" when describing my sources quite clearly reads as sarcasm and has no place on Wiki.

I get the feeling my page has come under scrutiny simply because it’s the first article I have written. Please try to assist me rather than allowing personal opinion to shape the viability of this article. Quite simply, he is notable and has been part of many high-profile 'events.' SRR111 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSINGER "9. Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition." - he came third, as a member of New Bounce in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Therefore meets the conditions. Britain's Got Talent (series 5) averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV and is a major British competition.

Also meets the condition of section 4 & 12. SRR111 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== References ==
The following references support notability under WP:NSINGER section 9:
- "Britain's Got Talent: MJ speaks to the ES". Express & Star. 2011-06-03. Retrieved 2023-11-09.
- "Britain's Got Talent: Jai McDowall beats Ronan Parke". BBC News. 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2023-11-09.
SRR111 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one of the issues here is the way sources are being searched. When using the "find sources" tool on Wiki, the combined search term "FNTSY" with "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" in quotes doesn't yield any results, but this is due to the specificity of the search term rather than a lack of sources. Searching each term separately – "FNTSY" and "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" – brings up significantly more information across reputable sources.

Given that "FNTSY" is his current artist name, while "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" is his known name in previous work and public appearances, perhaps renaming the page to "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" could be a more straightforward solution. However, to clarify, both names are relevant and notable, as he has built a reputation across different phases of his career.

In light of this, I encourage deeper research with variations on his name and aliases before concluding on the page's viability. It may reveal more comprehensive sources and ultimately strengthen the article's standing. SRR111 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep argument that is being presented so I think a little more discussion time would be useful and an evaluation of newly found sources as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Currently, FNTSY does not have music available on streaming platforms" I mean, you're breathing in water right there, aren't you, if you're expecting to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:NMUSICIAN? As he fails WP:GNG, and the argument of WP:1E is compelling, I reckon we're done here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Hi Alexandermcnabb,
I don’t want to repeat myself as I already have replied to too much, but I feel as though references and arguments presented earlier have been ignored, which is frustrating. The claim that FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh) does not meet WP:NSINGER or WP:NMUSICIAN appears to disregard key achievements and misinterprets the guidelines.
1. Streaming Platforms and Notability:
Nowhere in WP:NSINGER or WP:NMUSICIAN does it state that an artist must currently have music available on streaming platforms to qualify as notable. While availability may add weight to an argument, its absence does not automatically disqualify an artist from meeting the criteria.
1. BBC Recognition:
FNTSY was named BBC Artist of the Month, which is a significant accolade from the UK’s national broadcaster. This demonstrates substantial public and institutional recognition, aligning with the notability criteria in WP:NSINGER.
1. Britain’s Got Talent Achievement:
As MJ Mytton-Sanneh, he achieved third place in Britain’s Got Talent as part of the group New Bounce. This is a major achievement in a widely followed national competition, further establishing his prominence and satisfying WP:GNG.
1. YouTube Presence:
FNTSY also has a performance visualiser on YouTube that has garnered significant viewership. This modern digital presence demonstrates continued public interest, which is a valid measure of engagement under WP:GNG.

Regarding WP:1E, the argument does not apply. MJ Mytton-Sanneh’s career spans multiple notable phases: his time in Britain’s Got Talent, his international performances in Thriller – Live, and his rebranding as FNTSY, marked by BBC recognition and continued digital engagement. This is not a one-off event but a sustained career with multiple significant achievements.

For these reasons, I believe FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh) meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG.

Please read references on article.

--SRR111 SRR111 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. You've already replied too much. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Maryus Vaysberg#Filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uvolit Zhoru

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

The correspondence between WP:MOVIE is not shown and is extremely doubtful.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryus_Vaysberg#Filmography: And revert redirect to expand page when release is confirmed; notable cast, filming that started, so opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it even exist? It isn't even listed in Russian Wikipedia. 128.12.122.36 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming. See sources. Feel free to create a redirect on the Russian Wikipedia if you wish. Other films by the same director have their page on this WP but not there and vice versa. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this blatantly promotional brochure to Maryus Vaysberg, as a gesture of kindness, instead of deleting it outright. Wikipedia is not a listing of future films, nor some collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of French animated television series#Comedy. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kézako

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-1529-zoe-kezako.html; also significant mentions here: https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/12/people-on-the-move-teamtos-kouper-named-personality-of-the-year-milano-heads-rai-kids-more/ ("winner of the 2004 Pulcinella Award at Cartoons on the Bay and an Emmy nominee") (Emmy nomination as Best international Children's program confirmed by other sources). If judged insufficient, redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy (listed there; with the nomination information and sources) (Also is a book series; same title) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The planete jeunesse source seems unreliable to me. The synposis it features seems to be a combination of word-for-word copies of this (archived) and this (archived) primary source. YuniToumei (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we see a few more opinions and arguments here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The Cartoons on the Bay 2004 Report mentions it and specifies which Pulcinella awards it won exactly. Also, by searching in french results specifically, I found a french news article in Le Monde's archive. These might be of use for some inline citations as well in order to improve the article. YuniToumei (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed excessive sections of the article and rewritten the synopsis using the Le Monde article, as well as added in some inline citations. However, despite finding another article after a deep dive into french newspaper archives, I now think the article does not meet WP:GNG, as all other articles I've seen are only passing mentions. The 2 articles that do have it as a primary topic are very short and do not provide much additional info. Redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy as suggested is probably best. Information on its awards could be merged there. YuniToumei (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal comment, seems like a weird coincidence too that the article's creator is called Teamto, when that is the name of the studio that produced the 2nd season. Creating this article was their only edit on enwiki. Seems like they were a major contributor on the french article as well, where that is also the only article they worked on. Possible WP:COI? YuniToumei (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dabil (1517)

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

Same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kerh (1516) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510). Doesn't seem notable, poorly formatted and unverifiable citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t find any sources at all to support this. In addition Kızıl Ahmet Bey did not die at it as shown in the Infobox, and according to this source neither did Mirza Mehmet. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously incorrect content. I would actually not be averse to moving this to draft space, just in case research turns up something, but the misinformation already contained makes me leery than anything would turn up. BD2412 T 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the sources only providing the names of the authors, but not the names of the books or journals or the date of publication or the publisher, it is impossible to know where this content is coming from. I could find nothing in English. I tried searching under the author names but was not able to locate a publication. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanni Hurtado

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

Had a brief pro career but I'm not seeing enough coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was Medio Tiempo, which mentions him once in the main text and once in the squad list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The fact that it was posted up by a serial abuser of multiple accounts who created a bunch of since-deleted texts does not help: I'd surmise paid contributor were I sherlockish but I'm not even the tax man. -The Gnome (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Escalante

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

Despite 164 mins of professional football, I can find no evidence of a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC. In fact, I can only find database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another text posted up by our serial abuser of multiple accounts. Most of them have been taken down already. This is a mop up, apparently. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besian Çeliku

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches yield only database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously fails said guidelines. Geschichte 23:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The burden lies with those wanting to Keep an article to either highlight sources in the article or bring new ones into an AFD discussion that demonstrate notability as outlined in Wikipedia's notability standards, in this case, for athletes. Claims of notability that are not supported by reliable sources are discounted. No sources have been brought to this AFD so I'm closing this discussion as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Perwani

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable snooker player. Doesn't meet GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cue sports and Pakistan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep as he is a bronze medalist of the 2002 Asian Games (see) — Mister Banker (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Please enlighten me on why this is a 'speedy keep'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won 2 bronze medals at the 2002 Asian Games.--گل زیب (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC) — گل زیب (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which has nothing to do with WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even come close to being notable. He's never even been in the top 128 players of snooker in the world. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find routine coverage of results, no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good to go for Pakistan, his medals in Asian games makes him notable to be on Wikipedia. Muneebll (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The Asian Games aren't the Olympics. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In context of Pakistan it is where winning medals in international games is a rare feat. Muneebll (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the nation of origin is irrelevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asian Games medalist is notable enough. and when I google his name i see enough articles about him in Pakistani media. Sports2021 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is also mentioned in Urdu (National) language media.--Y7L (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which media? To sports2021: are they reliable? And in-depth? Geschichte (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where are the GNG sources? The "random" SPAs above don't seem to be aware of SPORTCRIT and its requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject spectacularly fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. If being the cousin of a famous fashion designer was a criterion we would keep the text. It's not. By coincidence, most contributors suggesting Keep in this AfD are kamikaze accounts. -The Gnome (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. The Asian Games aren't currently one of the recognized sporting events at the WP:NATHLETE page. Winning a medal there doesn't fall under any WP:SNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confused bc those sections can easily be included in "electronic fluency devices", as this is an electronic fluency device, right? Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bl0ckeds0unds I believe that the effects of DAF described in the two mentioned sections fall outside of the scope of the Electronic fluency device article: In the Effects in people who do not stutter section, the application of DAF in research for disrupting fluency (as a "SpeechJammer") (see e.g. this, this and this paper, taken from that section's inline citations) is discussed, which is not suitable for the proposed merge as the Electronic fluency device article is limited to usage intending to improve fluency for people who stutter. The Effects in non-humans section discusses the application of DAF in songbirds (again see inline citations). The Electronic fluency device article is limited to effects in humans, so this too seems out-of-scope.

In short, DAF seems to refer to a broader concept, is not limited to electronic fluency devices, and thus I think it should be kept. Hope this clears it up a little! YuniToumei (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a broader notable concept. Some topics overlap with others and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. @Bl0ckeds0unds Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per 4Meter4 ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Travis

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Philippines. Demt1298 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One wishes good luck to the youngster, but sources supporting notability are unavailable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Raffa

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

The subject might not meet WP:SIGCOV. I see some sources about her, but it might be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Many of the sources are from her university or employer. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, Journalism, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep may be notable as many other journalists; some sources do exist as my quick google search shows, but I'm not good at evaluating journalistBLPs. --25lucky (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a journalist at the very beginning of a career, and like an assistant professor, we almost never keep such articles as being too soon. Bearian (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Keep arguments will have to supply evidence of notability (not just claims) in the form of reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable journalist. I can only find stories about this individual from her school and another PR item [1], [2]. Even with what's used in the article, we have nothing more than a CV. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the thousands of broadcast channels' reporters. Subject fails WP:GNG, which, of course, does not reflect at all on subject's professional ability and achievements. Wikipedia is not a directory of journalists. -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffino's Bakery of New Orleans

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

Apparent memorial page for a defunct non notable local business, created by an SPA who appears to have a conflict of interest. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Louisiana. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find one source: [3], but it's more a history of the building than the business. Otherwise, the sources in the article are a trivial mention and an unrelated interview that doesn't mention Ruffino's at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hyperlocal small business, some history found [4], but nothing for notability. I don't find enough with that we have in the article either to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as the BLP of the subject passes GNG. The nominator should have done a BEFORE. — Mister Banker (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[5][6] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[7][8], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk)
Keep, from the sources it seems to qualify WP:GNG.Also, Akal Takht is the supreme religious authority in Sikhism and we have wikipedia articles for the head and members of such religious authorities.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "he is just notable, we all know this" are not worth much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with @Adamantine123. Also there are cited enough reliable sources to support the BLP' article to meet GNG. MSLQr (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what are those sources that establish GNG? - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a clearly promotional text, lacking sources that would support the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG, despite all the chaff. The plethora of SPA's curating it does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had little coverage for controversial statements, but that does not help in establishing GNG. Dympies (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same as what Adamantine123 said. In addition it also appears to be decently well sourced. S302921 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "surely, there are sources" just do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keeps above fail to explain how the subject is notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Singh is the primary subject in multiple news stories in national papers in India which span several years. This would seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV guidelines for proving notability through independent significant coverage. Newspaper articles are routinely used to prove WP:GNG at wikipedia; so dismissing newspapers outright as not relevant seems spurious.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the sources. WP:NOTNEWS is very clear on routine coverage. Vague hand waves won't work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As one participant says here, if this subject is notable, then "show the sources". Making claims of notabiity without highlighting evidence, either existing in the article or brought to this discussion, are empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are currently 11 sources in this page. I think that's more than good enough for this page. According to the second source on the page he was featured in Hindustan Times. (I would like to apologise for any formatting errors) S302921 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them address any of the concerns of the nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles." is not a good argument. We don't have articles for Every single number. He was referenced in multiple sources listed on the page and his page has plenty of content on it. S302921 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-check WP:OVERKILL. None of the sources crowding the wavelength address the nomination's concerns. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could argue that, but my point still stands. His article has plenty of information available to keep his page. S302921 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nom is right, there is some routine coverage of the subject's appointment as the jathedar of the Akal Takht in Indian media, of the type that the policy requires us to discount. WP:SIGCOV for the subject is missing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Akal Takht is the supreme body of the Sikh religion, and Giani Harpreet Singh represented more than 25 million Sikhs worldwide. He is also a person responsible for imposing religious punishment on former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab named Sukhbir Singh Badal, and due to this punishment, the deputy chief minister can't participate in any religious or social activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiravidas (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Jathedar does not make one notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per NBASIC and PUBLICFIGURE, sources satisfies the requirements for notable status. Furthermore, his appointment as Jathedar of the Akal Takht, a prestigious office in Sikhism, underscores his significance. ®asteem Talk 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read pages you are pointing to? NBASIC clearly states that BLP requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", not a single source has been provided that does that. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is not even relevant here, it pertains to mentioning well documented allegations in reliable sources if the subject is a public figure as opposed to WP:BLPCRIME which forbids it for non public figures. Being a jathedar does not make one automatically notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: We already have enough null & void arguments to last us a year. Could we please stop with the claims that our subject "is surely notable" or that "certainly, sources exist"? It has been registered quite clearly that the subject is well loved. Let's please allow the process to conclude. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Khalistan figure. The above empty indications of notability by "keep" supporters is unconvincing. Nxcrypto Message 06:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above Giani Harpreet Singh represented more than 25 million Sikhs worldwide. He has numerous source on his page to keep it. S302921 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. This has only ever been a redirect; those are discussed at RfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Lionhearts

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

Can't find sufficient references to make this a page, but it is obvious that this is not the England national team. Either a more appropriate redirect is needed or the page has to be deleted as the current redirect is very misleading. Mn1548 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - in my view, this would be more appropriate at WP:RfD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aoi House. On the whole there is not a consensus for any particualr course of action, but there does seem to ba rough consensus that this is not an acceptable stand-alone article. It's already been relisted twice and that hasn't resolved it, so this seems the most reasonable course of action at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a very good deletion argument. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.

Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.

Delete outright for lack of independent sources supporting notability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind merging Vampire Cheerleaders into this article, instead of getting rid of this article. But the problem remains that none of the sources say anything at all about the author. It would just be along the lines of "he created x from here to then, and created y from there to thus" and that's it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

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

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both English and simple-English Wikipedias contain numerous articles about descendants of the defunct Brazilian royal family—individuals whose encyclopedic relevance is highly questionable, especially considering that many do not even have articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia. There is longstanding evidence of coordinated edits by pro-monarchy groups who create such articles as part of a cross-wiki spam effort, aiming to inflate the prominence of these figures. Sturm (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the future head of the Imperial House of Brazil. I see no reason why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I was surprised that his father didn't have one. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just remembered that his older brother, Prince Pedro Luiz, too had a Wikipedia page. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on past precedent of keeping deposed monarchs, but requiring significant coverage of the royal person. In my longstanding standards for nobility, I write, “Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.” I don’t see any coverage at all about this young man - it might be just too soon since he was “promoted”. I recommend, as we often do in such cases, to redirect to Brazilian imperial family or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line. I actually think the article is weakened by the addition today of a lot of detail from his brother's article. There's basically nothing in the article about him personally other than his birth. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the above poster pointed out, very little is about him personally.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sturm (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several relevant news articles that pass WP:GNG.Axisstroke (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright for lack of sources supporting notability. Rafael may well inherit the throne of Brazil one day, but the notability he's after here cannot be inherited. Fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line per WP:ATD. It's a credible search term at the very least, and a redirect to the House of Orléans-Braganza would seem appropriate as well as a brief passing mention of the subject on that page.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like this one could be a candidate for expansion from the French-language version.[9] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in the Brazilian media [10], [11], [12]. Svartner (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no Delete arguments any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

~~Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~ WITHDRAWN due to the new citations provided below. I feel it now passes WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A burn-off pilot never really meant to be aired; only did so for tax benefits (years before David Zazlav would take too much advantage of it). Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added ref to book with significant coverage, also see https://www.theregister.com/2007/12/19/tiger_team/ A redirect might be considered too. Mushy Yank (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 pinging you to ask you what you think of the 2 sources and/or a redirect. Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the book reference is good, but the register one is saying the page does not exist. Is there a better link to evaluate the source? Thanks! DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]

I think these are enough for it to pass WP:GNG, so I say KEEP. Another user voted to delete, so I won't withdraw my nomination. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,@Donaldd23 you can withdraw, if that is what you wish (Wikipedia:WITHDRAWN); only, the closer cannot close the nomination as Speedy Keep despite your withdrawing, that is all. But thanks all the same.@MrSchimpf, what say you? -Mushy Yank. 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep Happy to see the sourcing much improved now. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@MrSchimpf! -Mushy Yank. 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG per the sources found by Mushy Yank. Mushy Yank please take the time to add these sources to the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, thank you for your relist. There's now a possibility to close this as Speedy keep if you think that's helpful. -Mushy Yank. 10:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arshin Mehta

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

Previously deleted and salted. Sources:

IMDB. Really?
Interview hence not independent
What makes this a reliable and independent source? I'm not seeing evidence of either.
A collection of advertisements is not a reliable source.
Another interview
IMBb again
Sole mention of the subject is "The movie stars Arshin Mehta."
Sole mention of the subject is one sentence and a cast list.
Sole mention of the subject is one sentence attributed to her and her presence in a list.
Not significant coverage for various reasons.
Another interview
No mention of the subject other than in the title.

So the sourcing just isn't there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Maharashtra. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, the sources don't come even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and BEFORE finds nothing better. There is also nothing to suggest this person would meet WP:NACTOR, either. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsurpring it's Pppery again nominating an article I worked on just yesterday as it invoked this category I'm currently patrolling alongside autopatrollers, Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, foe deletion. I then sent it to RMTR because of the Arshin Mehta (Actress) title which I ain't surprised due to seeing that it was salted (due to 3 creations and 3 admin deletions within November and December 2017) and it was posed as though I'm part of a hidden scheme just to have an article here with this title whatever it takes when in fact it isn't. Good luck anyone reviving this though! Intrisit (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor actress with no significant and notable roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources are mostly unreliable and one that is not secondary independent and some others poor with no significant coverage on the subject but just passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keeo. Passes WP:NACTRESS for her lead roles in The Diary of West Bengal and Bloody Ishq. Some of the source analysis above is off; particularly dismissing a film review in which she plays the central character.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails WP:GNG. It may become notable and it might not. It really all depends on whether it gets built. This could incubate in draft space.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed deletion and none of the subsequent edits have addressed my concerns about WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turing test#Tolkien test per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the redirect will work here, as the article on the Tolkien test for Artificial Intelligence was created by the same editor as this article, and has since been redirected to Turing test, which does not now seem to mention Tolkien. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources about this 'Tolkien test' are a pair of blog posts published last month. - MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As User:Espresso Addict says, this is a less than a month old post with no independent RS. Amusing but not notable at this time. Lamona (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The removal of a large proportion of the text and references by the article creator shortly after this AfD commenced makes any notability even less evident, but the subject's term on Wychavon District Council for Droitwich Central falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, and his essays on the Homiletic & Pastoral Review site, Mind Matters and Times of Israel blogs do not demonstrate attained WP:AUTHOR notability. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As outlined above, there is nothing in the article, or anything obvious online, that would suggest the subject has achieved the level of notability that would justify them having a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Thomson

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

Radio presenter article. Subject has done typical radio presenter things - presented shows on various stations, but not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage found on a search to satisfy WP:GNG. Article has been in this poor state since 2007(!). Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's AfDs like this which makes it frustrating that Wikipedia won't accept Aircheckdownloads.com as a source. If it did then many articles like this would have more independent references and would not have been deleted. Rillington (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Online searches only mention him by name for certain shows and stations, clearly a hard working fellow in his field but no WP:SIGCOV at all to justify separate biography here (not familiar with Aircheckdownloads.com but can't imagine what this would have shown to indicate notability - it is not in doubt that he is a DJ and played many songs...?) Crowsus (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. He's a radio presenter but hasn't himself become the subject of any significant coverage. Not everyone working in media is notable.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([13], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The es-wiki version is longer but it does not appear to be a specific legal form unique in the law or culture of Spanish-speaking countries but rather a generic local term for a not-for-profit association. I think a redirect is appropriate, probably to Voluntary association but perhaps to Nonprofit organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. In reading the source there are different kinds of non-profit licensing/designations in Spanish speaking countries under Spanish law. This is one of those. Arguably we could redirect and merge this with non-profit. Either way, this is a legal term for certain types of companies that is unique to Spanish-speaking countries which would seem encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Çoruh. asilvering (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Çoruh as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikalp Singh

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

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV sources and am unsure how this page was kept. I asked the reviewer for clarification but received no response, so I am taking it to AfD. The sources are poor, providing only passing mentions, and I found no significant coverage after further searches. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 14:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with only passing mention. Fails WP:NBIO. Page reads as promotion for the subject. No significant achievement can be found that can be considered worthy of notice to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The roles and achievements mentioned lack sufficient depth and are backed by unreliable sources, making them inadequate for a standalone Wikipedia article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - each individual achievement asserted as a reason for notability is ordinary, and combined are little more than a Gish gallop. Even with seven references, there’s not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. as User:BusterD has withdrawn their deletion nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Women's United States Championship

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

This is a new article about an upcoming, unscheduled event just announced last night (no cite for the announcement). There's inadequate sourcing to support this article, and it's entirely WP:TOOSOON for article creation, based on my reasonable BEFORE. It's already the target of ip speculators and page protection has been requested. I'd be okay with draftification. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Wrestling. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about a real women's title that was introduced on WWE SmackDown! last night by the WWE SmackDown! General Manager Nick Aldis.
And next week on WWE Raw the company will introduce a Women's Intercontinental Championship. More than likely. 2600:1004:B0B1:937E:0:3:134D:3F01 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)— 2600:1004:B0B1:937E:0:3:134D:3F01 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This is a real championship which was announced on WWE TV, a source could be wwe.com HydraXIX (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)— HydraXIX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - subject championship (NOT an event) already has coverage in Vice[14] and Bleacher Report (purely uncontroversial claims),[15] establishing notability per WP:GNG. Speculative content in violation of WP:CRYSTAL can be removed through normal editing. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was literaly announced on WWE TV and yes, is real, this article will develop on time --Miki1234568 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE, agree with the nominator. This is a perfect example WP:BREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. It also lacks notability for a separate article since that is not WP:INHERITED. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This championship has been announced and has been covered by, as well as the page's current sources, various other news sources that just haven't yet been added. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quick deletion does not help Wikipedia's credibility. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 is correct. VyveGuy1 (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per same reason other editors have stated. It is an actual professional wrestling championship that was just unveiled last night (not an event as the nominator incorrectly claimed). And yes, there was a citation for the announcement (unless it had gotten removed when you requested this AfD and has since been readded). It's a Start level article, which means it will be expanded. This AfD was TOOSOON. --JDC808 ♫ 20:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per above. kpgamingz (rant me) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. I can see my BEFORE this morning looks quite different this afternoon. Appreciate being told when I'm incorrect. Sorry for dragging you folks here. 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5 Fathoms Below (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Gupta (film director)

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

A director whose films are not notable, thus failing to meet the WP:NDIRECTOR criterion, and the sources are likely NEWSORGINDIA. For example, this Mid-Day article is a sponsored piece, as it appears under the 'brand-media' section and is published by BrandMedia. Other sources are ANI press releases, which are neither independent nor WP:SIGCOV and may also be sponsored. Consequently, the subject currently fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GrabUp - Talk 14:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When considering the sources used in the article, the Mid Day article is paid. The Latestly article also appears promotional, as it lacks a genuine author. Similarly, the APN News article doesn't have a credible author. As for the ThePrint article, it was sourced from ANI. While ThePrint is generally regarded as reliable, this particular article is also paid. Therefore, I will align with the nominator’s position on this matter. Baqi:) (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed some sources considered to be generally unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, as well as the justwatch citation which isn't a source at all. What remains is advertorials and press releases. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this source and this source – they are not only advertorials but blatantly based on the same text, probably a PR or else a paid placement of some kind. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom fails WP:NDIRECTOR. RangersRus (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NCREATIVE. Later - maybe. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mohadevpur Upazila#Secondary schools. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohadevpur Sarba Mongala (Pilot) High School

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

Tagged for notability by Abishe shortly after it was created. The creator removed the tag and continued to expand it, but never added a source. The external link is to an indiscriminate self-published website that does not help establish notability. My own searches didn't find sources to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. Could potentially redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila, where it is mentioned in a list of 26 secondary schools. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila#Secondary schools. Procyon117 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila#Secondary schools. 4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Błażyca

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

Being a victim of the Katyn massacre is not enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject distinctly fails WP:GNG. Irrespective of the tragic and historical aspect of the text, Wikipedia is not a directory of the fallen. There were more than 20 thousand dead at Katyn; not everyone is source-supported enough for an independent article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges-Claude_Guilbert

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Georges-Claude Guilbert (2nd nomination)

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

does not fit criteria for academic relevance and possibility of self promotion Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 15 years ago, I tagged this stub in the hope that someone would find better sources and fix the issues, yet here we are. Edits over the past 15 years haven’t improved it much. There are sometimes the subjects of articles from the 2000s that end up becoming notable – think of an alderman in 2007 elected to Congress in 2016 – but this isn’t the case here. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A professor at a French university. That is all and while it's certainly a praise worthy achievement, Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Kim Chung

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is about the chairperson of a non-notable company. It was previously soft-deleted but later recreated by a single-purpose account. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. As a diplomat, he’s literally at the lowest level: an honorary consulate official. To put this is perspective: (a) we’ve recently deleted dozens of articles about diplomats, and (b) my late landlord in Albany was Honorary Consul of Italy in the City of Albany, New York, and his only requirement was to get a visa for someone about once a year. That the government is controlled by a party more interested in ideology than notability should give us pause. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt with prejudice this blatantly vain promotional text, lacking the credentials to be in. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

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

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud Al-Nuaimi

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

Had only a very brief career and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Best that I can find in Arabic is FilGoal, which is just a database source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only 308 playing minutes confirmed by Soccerway. Geschichte (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is condemned by WP:NFOOTY. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Awaji

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

Deleted before. No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Created by notorious sockpuppet user and block evader. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NFOOTY. -The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series). ✗plicit 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Walker (Brothers & Sisters)

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

Article has been tagged as uncited since 2013. The entire article contains WP:JUSTPLOT. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series) since it lacks evidence supporting independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)#Characters (or to the page without the section link) as a reasonable search target. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Reminder to all arguing for keep that WP:NSPORT Q1 and Q2 are clear that GNG must be met in these cases. asilvering (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Withdrawn by nominator" See below for full reason but basically I'm tired of this and the Tennis Project people.Shrug02 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! The player She won Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 ITF W75 Tournaments. As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. SlowpokesB (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has made limited edits to topics outside this area. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Is she saved by WP:NTENNIS? Let's see:

1. She is not a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 2. She has not won even one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. 3. She has not won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. And 4. She does not hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.

Hence, not Wikinotable. For a compendium of tennis players I look elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory of tennis players. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out earlier, her title at the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 is of a high enough level to meet NTENNIS. Has anyone here looked for Russian language sources which could meet GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous link to the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon is dead. (It's actually the 75, but it's not important.) I found a source that shows she has indeed won there, and placed it in the article, so the article qualifies. Changing my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added is just a scorecard. That's not significant coverage. It's like saying every soccer player you can find listed as playing in a professional match is worth having their own page. Shrug02 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link takes us to a scorecard that testifies that she has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, as denoted in WP:NTENNIS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Ovcharenko won 1 W75 doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (so what The Gnome said about GNG still initially still stands). WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (often getting hits on other people with the same name). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a sport that's predominantly popular in singles. As of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key point. Like so many of these tennis articles there is no SIGNIFICANT coverage so they fail to meet the overarching Wikipedia criteria. Just having a scorecard saying someone called J Bloggs won a tournament that the Tennis Project deem noteworthy but the real world and even the WTA see as minor, does not meet the required standards. Shrug02 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing GNG is far, far more important than passing NTENNIS by the skin of your teeth. Score summaries and database sources might well verify an NTENNIS pass but they have no value in a GNG conversation. Also note that WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Note the word 'must' is used here not 'should' or 'could do with'. Significant coverage is not a mere suggestion or an afterthought but an actual requirement of every sports biography article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NTENNIS per above. WP:SNGs do not replace WP:GNG but GNG also also does not replace an SNG. They are two separate and both valid pathways to proving notability. The delete votes ignoring NTENNIS are simply wrong and boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. We don't ignore WP:NTENNIS just because you don't like it.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this article it fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it has only 3 references all of which fall into the category of trivial coverage. This is nothing to do with "I don't like it", it's to do with following the guidelines. Shrug02 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and WP:SPORTSBASIC is only one portion of WP:NSPORT. Someone passing a specific criteria at WP:NTENNIS doesn't have to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as well. That's not how our SNG guidelines work. At the 2022 RFC on sports we weeded out a lot of the poorly written criteria in the individual sports SNGs; what little is left is still applicable and each guidline is not dependent on the others. If one pathway is met, its met.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, WP:NSPORT's FAQ (which WP:NTENNIS is under) that I linked to in my vote is pretty clear. NTENNIS is there "only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Thus, the subject must pass WP:GNG under NSPORT guidelines, which is not the case here - despite searching in-depth about Ekaterina Ovcharenko, where nothing changed weeks after this AfD started. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You are totally misinterpreting that bolded paragraph which states “they are intended to stop quick deletions” in a good faith belief that sources can be found in time. That’s exactly what I am arguing. I believe the sources exist but they are in Russian and likely behind pay walls. Why have NTENNIS at all if everything just goes back to SPORTSBASIC which is essentially a regurgitation of GNG? We should just delete NSPORT all together if that is the attitude. And truncate WP:N to a single paragraph. We have SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a "nonsense", I'm exactly offering you what it says - and you are ignoring the "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline" part. NSPORT itself is a guideline that shows what is likely to have significant coverage and pass GNG. It's not supposed to be a workaround when GNG isn't met - never was. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried looking for stuff to add to this article but can't find anything I'd say was significant in the dictionary definition of significant. Lookslikely (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems keeping this article is so important to the Tennis Project that they (in the form of @Adamtt9) are now seeking to have me banned from Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia to occupy my mind and hopefully make a positive contribution, which I thought I was doing. Anyone can check my edit history and hopefully see I have improved many articles in the area of tennis and many other subjects. Frankly I'm tired of this whole business which is damaging my already poor mental health. ~~For this reason I withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion~~ in the hope that I will be left alone to continue my hobby in peace. Shrug02 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug02 There is no need (nor you can, as per the rules it only happens if it's an obvious keep situation) to withdraw the nomination that's valid and, in my opinion, has the consensus. Don't let that sock investigation deter you from things in Wiki - not to mention it was quickly dismissed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97 I wasn't aware I couldn't withdraw but now you have informed me I've now crossed that out. Thanks for your encouragement to not be deterred. I appreciate it. As for having the consensus to delete, I would agree with your assessment but obviously that is not my call. I honestly just hope a decision is made and no more relisting and, most importantly, that I am not made the subject of any further negativity. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding content irrelevant to this AfD

Shrug02, this is serious accusation. Irrespective of this AfD's denouement, could you please present evidence supporting it? And know that, if the accusation, is true, (a) you will not be alone in fighting it, and (b) the miscreants could be struck by a heavy flying object. -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome The only evidence I have is that @Adamtt9 instigated a Sock Puppet Investigation into me yesterday. Shrug02 (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly legitimate action. If you are not a sock, there is nothing detrimental to your presence here from such an investigation. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome I didn't even know what a sock puppet was (other than the ones you put on your hand) until I Googled it yesterday. I'm just not into all this nonsense. And no I'm not a Sock. Shrug02 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome Oh and by the way the investigation has been closed but no doubt they'll try something else next. Shrug02 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamtt9, what is going on? -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shrug02) was closed with no action taken a few hours after it was opened. Iffy★Chat -- 13:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iffy I saw that. I just feel harassed by all this and as I said I have poor mental health anyway and don't want any extra stress and hassle. Shrug02 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only humbly recommend that you walk away from this AfD and ignore the whole episode. An investigation about potential sockpuppetry is not "harassment". If you feel uncomfortable you might want to take a break from editing; though, there is certainly no need to abandon the project. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. asilvering (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Etefa

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

I tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ethiopia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: until such a time as the references are properly formatted, inline, and are references to actual sources not just the name of a newspaper. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All that matters is whether the topic is notable, and he clearly is. Senior general and meets WP:GNG. Terrible article, but AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp I recognize that AfD is not cleanup, however WP:DRAFTIFY and peoples persistence in moving "their" article back into mainspace prevented me from unilaterally draftifying again. There really does need to be a space for discussing articles that technically shouldn't be unilaterally draftified per WP:DRAFTIFY but perhaps they ought to be draftified, anyways...but there isn't. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of failing WP:GNG. Arguments to the tune of "he is certainly notable" or "there must be sources" just do not hold water. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome Besides, if there were sources, they'd probably be added by now. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tolui ie, restoring the original merge. asilvering (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

AfDs for this article:

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

In a previous AfD, a clear consensus emerged that this biography did not meet WP:BIO1E, and it was merged to Tolui.

The author of the recreated article claims that this woman is identical to another woman of a similar name. This is pure original research. They claim that this source "confirms Eltina or Aylt'ana was Altani", when in reality it does no such thing: is a chapter about transliterations of names.

I suggest that the original merge be restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francise confirmed they were one and same person Ortaq (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortaq: Could you perhaps quote the relevant part of the source? Or indicate the page number(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, Ortaq is free to correct me, but I believe they mean pages 410–411. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but I don't see how it supports their position. The source states (if you'll excuse my poor attempts at representing the characters used in the text correctly) that Grigor calls the wife of Čormaqan "Ayltʻana Xatʻun," but Kirakos calls her "Eltina Xatʻun" (Tiflis edition, p. 269, 1. 6 from the bottom). and In the Secret History (§ 214) the name of the wife of Boro𝛾ul appears seven times (YCPS 9.13b2 and 4; 14a5; 14b3; 15a2 and 4; 16a1). Each time it is transcribed [...] Al ta ni (= Altani).. It's all a bit technical of course, but this does not look to me like stating that the two are the same person—even if the source may be saying that these are two variations (or just transcriptions?) of the same name? TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, hence their argument is entirely flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I don't have any particular opinions on the merits of having a stand-alone article in this specific case beside that, but on the assumption that the last AfD got it right and given that nothing obvious has changed since (unless there's something I'm missing, the only thing that was new was the assertion that these two people were one and the same?), I suppose the "merge" outcome should stand—and since the content was presumably already merged that would amount to a (reinstate) redirect from me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the previous AfD: @TartarTorte, Oaktree b, TheBritinator, and Cielquiparle: what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was over a year ago, I honestly do not remember what this was about. TheBritinator (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also don't recall the prior AfD that well, I might look over this one again if I have a moment. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't remember, here is a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altani. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not even sure what this individual did that makes them notable. A woman mentioned in sources that fought people with a knife... Someone did this now, they wouldn't get an article. Not sure what having done this so long ago has to do with notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, the nominator is asking for an original Merge to be restored (although I'm not sure how this is done). What do you think of that outcome? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine I suppose, would at least preserve some of it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz the original merged content is still present in the original redirect target, so it would simply be a matter of reinstating the redirect as TompaDompa says above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another original creation weighed down by a camel-load of pretend-sources. I often keep very busy and I do try to exercise my body. But I avoid busy body. This title begs for a heavy dose of salt. -The Gnome (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The article has undergone dramatic improvement since it was nominated a month ago, with the goal of removing any WP:OR. However, I see a consensus that the topic is not notable, which has nothing to do with the content of the page. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find enough significant coverage to justify keeping the article. Coverage may exist, but if it exists it is probably buried in obscure books. Noah ^💬 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

prolonged back-and-forth with a user who is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock.

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just working through the additional sources, so not sure yet. My view is that the main body (not background) needs to have more than one good source that gives this siege significant coverage, in order for it to meet WP:N. Once I’ve checked everything, I’ll review my nomination and see if I reckon it should still be deleted. Thanks for following up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally we only relist a debate twice, but I am making an exception here due to the filibustering of the first week of debate by a user now confiormed to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the revision history, previously, I would have supported WP:TNTing it. As of the current changes made, it is now in a suitable state for the enyclopedia. A lot of us should now have this on our watchlists too to prevent this issue from occuring again. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the sigcov here. In fact, nothing about the siege in the article is currently cited at all. Reminder ping to Peacemaker67, in case you've found anything in the last week. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

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

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [16] [17] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [18] [19], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second citation appears to be from this article, so Azerbaijani-speaking editors could be of help. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the source referred to. The pdf you linked to doesn’t have pages 500 or 501 as in the reference, and in any case doesn’t mention Qara Hamid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

Delete as I can’t find any sources in any language for this alleged battle. Mccapra (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)8[reply]
Delete likely fabricated sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability and verification. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any more reliable sources. Nor does it have enough notability to warrant an article. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangilal Arya

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

I searced web and I didn’t find any single source for this article, fails WP:GNG. This article is also tagged since 2012 but not yet nominated. I m surprised how did this page survived a long. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Can not find anything on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I found exactly one source with three passing mentions, which isn’t enough. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebohon of Ova

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was declined at Afc but finds it's way back to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there’s a single source which, even if it’s reliable, constitutes original research. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling City Choir

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

A purely PROMOTIONal piece for a community group that has gained no INDEPENDENT coverage in the past 167 years. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did three searches (news, newspapers, and books) and found nothing. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. At this time, there's a consensus to keep this article based on source presented. Let's do well to improve the article in question. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasat Parjamandal

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this topic meets WP:NORG. Redirection would have been a good ATD, but the only article that mentions this party is Ghagga, a town, which seems inappropriate as a target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, India, and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article name has a typo, it should be "Riyasat Prajamandal", "Riyasat Prajamandal" or "Riasti Praja Mandal". Notable political movement, see [20], [21], [22], [23] --Soman (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article is notable and the article just needs some corrections. It’s better to improve the article rather than delete it. Since Soman has provided references above, I think it's justified for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Baqi:) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All we have, or can find, are name-drops in a small bunch of historical books whose subject is something general, i.e. "agrarian reform", "peasants in India's Non-Violent revolution," and so on. (One of them does not even mention Riyasat!) That is not how independent notability is achieved. And arguments to the tune "this is just notable for sure" or "there must be sources" do not amount to anything. -The Gnome (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd say that the following goes beyond just namedropping: "The muzara struggle got impetus with the formation of the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal (henceforth Praja Mandal) on July 17, 1928, at Mansa in Patiala state. Though the Praja Mandal was mainly a movement of the Sikh peasantry that evolved out of the long drawn Gurudwara Reform Movement (1921-1925), the varied ideological affiliations (Akali, Socialists, Communists, and Congress) of its multi-religious membership gave it a secular platform. It instilled new spirit in the muzara movement through its Akali-Praja Mandal Dewans (religio-political congregations). It also enabled extension to its political campaigns to smaller states of East Punjab, especially the state of Nabha, Jind, and Malerkotla, for protection of rights and liberties of the people, for setting up representative institutions, and for amelioration of hardships of the Muzaras. In 1933, the Mandal started an Urdu Weekly Ryasti Duniya (Lahore) edited by Talib Hussain of Malerkotla and a Punjabi journal Desh Dardi (Amritsar) edited by Sardara Singh Yuthup of Nabha Riyasat, to provide extensive coverage of its varied activities [...] Another significant development that further strengthened the muzara movement was the formation of the Communist-led kisan committees, which were also working 'under the influence of Praja Mandal leaders ...' (Mukherjee, 2004: 252). In a nutshell, the Praja Mandal leaders, Akalis and the leaders of the Communist-led Kisan Sabhas stood with the muzaras in their tirade against the biswedars, 'who had no legitimate right to the land which had been theirs (proprietor turned Muzaras) for generations ...' (Mukherjee, 2004: 247). Supported by the Praja Mandal movement, Akalis, and Communists and awakened by new political consciousness ignited by the bloody happenings at Jallianwala Bagh (1919) at Amritsar, the Nankana massacre (1921) at Nankana Sahib Gurdwara now in Pakistan, Jaito da morcha (1924) and Morcha Guru ka Bagh, the muzaras formed their own 'Muzara Committee' in 1929 and 'Muzara War Council' in 1938–1939. In 1945, a new 21 member Muzara War Council was also formed and this 'unleashed the most militant movement in the East Punjab States'". Also, no-one here has raised neither WP:JN nor WP:SOURCESEXIST. --Soman (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to locate references to the article's subject in texts about something else. "Mukherjee, 2004" is about Peasants in India's Non-Violent Revolution. The references to our subject in it are few and scattered. And the historical recapitulation, starting after "in a nutshell" in your comment, is strictly your own work. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The comment "since Soman has provided references" is equivalent to WP:SOURCESEXIST since those "sources" do not pan out. And the comment "I believe the article is notable " falls directly under WP:JN. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, you do realize that the Praja Mandal Riyasat was a peasants' movement? I provided a long quote which affirmed the notability of the movement, in which the wording "in a nutshell" is part of the quote from Thandi (2022). --Soman (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you claim that the peasants' movement was identical to a party that represented (or claimed to represent) the peasants' movement? Do you claim that without Riyasat Parjamandal there was no peasants' movement? -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a notable political movement supported by the WP:SIGCOV presented in this discussion. @Soman Could you please take the time to add references and improve the text of the article. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) - Praja Mandal Movement in East Punjab States by Ramesh Walia (1972) is a whole book about the Riyasat Praja Mandal movement, which is the very gold standard of WP:SIGCOV. In The Making of Punjab by Harish Jain (2003) there is a separate chapter on the Praja Mandal movement in Punjab (page 235-238). In The Sikhs of the Punjab, Vol. 2-3 by J. S. Grewal (1998) the Praja Mandal movement is covered, with details on how initially the Akalis were part of the movement but they later diverged, and that the Praja Mandal merged with Lok Seva Sangh to form the Pepsu Pradesh Congress which won the 1952 PEPSU election. In State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900-1950 by Copland (2005) we find a listing of the State Praja Mandals, with a total membership of around 53,000. In Peasant Movement in PEPSU, Punjab by Mohinder Singh (1991) the Praja Mandal movement in Punjab is mentioned across 27 pages. And in Congress and Indian Nationalism: The Pre-Independence Phase by Richard Sisson and Stanley Wolpert (2024) there is the quote "There is a thorough analysis of the ambiguous relationship between the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal and one peasant movement in Mridula Mukherjee , "Peasant Movement in Patiala State , 1937– 48" Studies in History, 1 (2) (July-December 1979):215-283". So... in this comment we have six different sources, all affirming the notability of the Riyasat Praja Mandal movement and/or affirming the existence of SIGCOV. All of them address the Punjab Riyasat Praja Mandal specifically, and in depth. --Soman (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The Panjab Past and Present, Vol.15 published by the Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, 1981, has an article titled A Peep into the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal. I can't access the full text, only snippet view, but seemingly it stretches at least 14 pages. In ThePrint article Behind Bhagat Singh chants at farmers’ protest, a century-old Left tradition in Punjab we find the following brief summary: "Leaders of the Akali movement founded the ‘Punjab Riasti Praja Mandal Party’ in 1929 to agitate against the princely states demanding a representative government. The flashpoint was the collection of batai, or a portion of produce, by biswedars or land owners from tenant tillers or muzaras. Praja Mandal leader Sewa Singh Thikriwala [hi] started encouraging muzaras not to pay batai. Thikriwala was incarcerated by the then Maharaja of Patiala, and the severity of his stint in jail proved fatal. His statue still stands in the city of Patiala. After his death, the Praja Mandal movement was led by Jagir Singh Joga, a communist leader. [...] The Praja Mandal movement remained till its end, in 1953, the broadest political platform in Punjab, embracing many Congress members, communists and freedom fighters." --Soman (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article by Dr. Ramesh Walia on Praja Mandal Movement in the East Punjab States here in full text on Internet Archive. Presumably a summary of the details in his 1972 book on the subject. Here a Youtube video on the history of the Punjab Riyasat Praja Mandal, if I understand correctly the video is intended to serve as a learning aid for preparations of the Punjab Public Service Commission entry exam, which apparently may include questions on the Praja Mandal movement. --Soman (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Tyagi

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

Being related to a notable person does not establish notability on Wikipedia. The subject clearly fails to meet both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm only seeing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ratekreel (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with just passing mention. I can not find any substantial and significant achievement worthy of notice by the subject to warrant a page on. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because notability is not inherited from his dad, Trump or political party. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. It's a great photo, though. -The Gnome (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.

- The second Dagens Nyheter ”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.

- The Sveriges Radio interview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.

- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.

It's true that some of the other sources you have listed are self-made or websites of related zen centers but, as I understand it, primary sources can be appropriate for non-controversial facts in an article about a person. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully Allllllice (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've now added an additional source: Larsson, L. Vägledare i svensk zenbuddhism. Buddhism-nu. 1/08. Temporarily uploaded here.

This is an interview with Kanja Odland from 2008 published in the Swedish buddhism magazine Buddhism-nu that ticks the boxes of significant coverage, reliable & independent. The article itself explains her notability (my translation):

[...] summer 2006 [...] Kanja received "Inka" (Dharma transmission) which is the final confirmation that Kanja is an independent sensei – teacher – with the right to freely teach and appoint her own successors. Which in itself is a unique event in the development of Buddhism in Sweden – that we now have a Swedish, female Zen teacher as a guide and role model.

We now have this together with the Dagens Nyheter interview, which we agreed is independent and in-depth, plus the other sources ("Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" from Dagens Nyheter , "2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening", Sveriges Radio interview) which we agreed were independent. Allllllice (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2]^[3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since, despite the admirable efforts at discovery, subject remains bereft of sources confirming beyond doubt its notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Oblivy. Collectively passes WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Fundamentally, this man is notable for his work as a lawyer. Excluding coverage of him for his work in cases, the primary aspect of his notability, seems like a spurious argument. Those sources are directly related to the primary reason he is encyclopedic, so they are pertinent to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then the article needs a major rewrite to incorporate the sources (which were found, I think, by User:Cloventt rather than User:Oblivy) that supposedly establish notability. Muzilon (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzilon WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and per policy at WP:NEXIST sources only have to be shown to exist and do not have to be present in the article. Feel free to add the sources to the article and work on it; but there is WP:NOTIMELIMIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect‎ to List of political parties in India. A delete nomination, a keep, and a redirect might seem to add up to no consensus without enough discussion. However, the keep !voters did not show the other two to be incorrect about dearth of evidence for independent notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources supporting independent notability. WP:EXIST is not a carte blanche to include everything under the sun. Wikipedia is not the directory of political parties in India, or anywhere for that matter, nor is it a collection of random information. And this is about a party that's currently in the national parliament but about in no sources appear to be interested? Come on. Redirect it, graciously, to List of political parties in India. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

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

This clearly fails WP:NPOL, as the subject has not won any elections to prominent positions like MP, MLA, or MLC. Additionally, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Holding a position as Chief National Spokesperson of a party does not satisfy Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Bihar. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a party spokesman, unless it’s of a one-party or dominant-party system, is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails wp:GNG and Wp:NPOL. Zuck28 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullipedia (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youn Young-seong

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 7 minutes in the K-League and 215 minutes in the J2 league. The Japanese Wikipedia has mostly primary sources, though it has the one sports.khan.co.kr article, which looks like fluff to me. It has words like "grow rapidly" and "absorbing the detailed and fast-paced soccer unique to South America like a sponge" when the reality is he never played a single competitive match in South America. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Mohamed (footballer, born 2002)

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

Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 14 matches in the Qatari league. Article looks very similar to those created by sockpuppet abuser Mhsohaib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (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) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to have significant success in the sport. Less than 130 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. The one source provided is a database. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Saukkonen

(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) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Finland. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to have significant success in the sport. Less than 60 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

(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) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having won the British Open and being the first player to have been paid by the UK government to play darts, Cosnett has coverage of its time - Sunday Mercury, Black Country Evening Mail for same, Herald Express for same - for this matter, there's a heap of other regional papers who cover him for being the only player at the time paid by the government for his sporting career. Further coverage of him "rounding off his year in style" in the Black Country Evening Mail by winning the British Open, the national darting competition at the time. There's also the Black Country Evening Mail covering him switching careers to enter the pub business (which isn't quite about his sporting achievements, but it'd be weird for a regional newspaper to cover some non-notable bloke applying for a pub license...). I don't have access to the BNA but there's also a story in the Wolverhampton Express and Star entitled "Darts star John off to seek fame", and in the same publication for him not paying his taxes - again, not really about his achievements, but it's hard to think some random unnotable would get the same coverage, let alone labelled a "darts ace". I'm seeing well enough coverage from his heyday to merit keeping the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on sources uncovered by Ser! above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah, the world before 1996... The coverage unearthed by Ser! above does the trick for me, Cosnett clearly passes WP:GNG. And I'm, once again, a poet. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Mourad

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. I do not believe he meets WP:JOURNALIST. Article contains a number of uncited claims that I was not able to verify. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Journalism, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: During searches I found a bunch of stuff about them being a desirable batchelor, but none of it amounting to WP:SIGCOV. I also found food reviews by them or photographs taken by them in the food reviews of others. None of what I found meets WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NBASIC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dipluridae species

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

This is effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that duplicates information in Dipluridae and its various genus pages. Keeping it doubles the amount of work to keep the wiki up to date, and doesn't add anything. There is a list of genera in Dipluridae, and a list of species within each genus (e.g. Linothele). The lists are not so long as to unbalance the articles and justify having their own page. Each genus in Dipluridae has its own article, so there's no longer a case to list species by family due to an absence of genus articles, as I understand was the rationale for this system. There is some precedence for deleting this based on the List of Salticidae Species deletion. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support In the early days of creating spider articles, there may have been a rationale for having lists of species by family, rather than including them in genus articles, but this is no longer the case. As the nominator rightly says, listing species by family and then again by genus creates redundancy, adds nothing, and makes maintenance more difficult, frequently leading to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Such list articles make updating the taxonomy more difficult and sometimes they get overlooked leading to inconsistencies. The list are useful when there there are few genus articles and the list unbalances the family article, but this isn't the case here. A list might be suitable if it includes other information (habitat, conservation, web type, etc) but again that's not the case here. When here are large numbers of species, lists at the genus level seems more appropriate. — Jts1882 | talk 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The family article has a linked list of recent genera, each of which has a species list; and for the fossil genera (where we don't have separate genus articles) it does list the species, which are few. This article adds nothing beyond these components, and thus seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: ~~The subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN~~ however, the subjects appointment as Chief Electoral Officer was only made today (November 9). Reliable sources may still be in the process of being published, given the significance of this position in government, although some have already been made available. Additionally, the subject is not new to politics, being an established figure in Indian national politics. That said, the article may be considered WP:TOOSOON as well and could be moved to draft status for further development.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the keep vote with a comment now.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mims Mentor: Could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and NBIO? GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject being an Indian Administrative Service officer newly appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Government of Tamil Nadu, falls under the category of WP:NSUBPOL whose members can be accorded presumed notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor: Indian Administrative Service officers are not politicians. WP:NPOL is just for judges and elected politicians. You misunderstood NPOL. Read what is listed in WP:NSUBPOL regarding India: It says, “Members of the Legislative Assemblies and Councils of the States and Union Territories are presumed notable. Members of the Autonomous District Councils may or may not have presumed notability.” There is no way an appointed Chief Electoral Officer is included under NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. While I'm not opposed to deletion (as mentioned, drafting the article could still be relevant), there might still be potential for significant coverage, as the subject was only recently appointed to the role. This could soon meet the general notability guidelines. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this article can be recreated. I am also not opposed to draftification, if consensus decides it. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Electoral officer does not pass WP:NPOL, subject in any case does not pass WP:GNG. I can't buy draftification as there's no evidence there's anything more to justify notability, certainly nothing inherent in this role as a local official in a non-political role. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two weeks later, the only articles are still about her appointment. Therefore I don't think a draftify would be appropriate. Procyon117 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

(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) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source may count but would need mulitple sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoops, I wish “ worst record in the history of the World Professional Darts Championship” garnered sources for him to pass WP:ANYBIO, because this fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ottawa stabbing

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

The subject of the article is a minor crime incident which falls under WP:BREAKING and WP:ROUTINE coverage. It also fails WP:LASTING impact. — Mister Banker (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mister Banker (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage here is absolutely not WP:ROUTINE. Please read the examples at WP:ROUTINE for comparison. Breaking is a concern, as is depth and duration of coverage. There's not enough here to build an article that isn't bad which is my biggest concern.

This did get several months of coverage so not all the sources are breaking, but IDK if it's enough. It was created too early to see if it will turn out notable, but if it turns out notable I would support recreating it in the future. Familicides tend to be the least likely kind of mass attack to receive NEVENT qualifying coverage so that is a strike against it. Merge into List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present), probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worst mass killing in the city's history. Definitely notable.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? What's next? Are we going to have an article on WP for worst mass killing incident in each of the Canada's cities? There's nothing encyclopedic about the article. This is simply WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are enough reliable sources on them, then yes, of course! And I find your citing geographical bias comical, as it has been my experience that Canadian news on Wikipedia is often covered way less than U.S. news, even after factoring for population. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this murder in Canada’s capital city has gotten continued coverage here and there. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The filer has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Oriental Aristocrat - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Douglas

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

WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is effectively just the usual campaign brochure referenced to the usual smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every district can always show, which is not enough to render his unsuccessful election campaign more notable than other unsuccessful election campaigns all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We appreciate Mr. Douglas' willingness to stand for election, but as mentioned, standing for election and failing does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37 per below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37, which is a common outcome for unsuccessful candidates who are up-and-coming. He was endorsed by Maxwell Frost and gained some coverage. He’s certainly someone to watch. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37, as a usual and appropriate outcome for a losing candidate for the US House (per WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Republican Party

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political party represented in state legislature. By no means impossible to source, and WP:NEXIST applies here as it is not very easily to find regional news from India from 2003 online. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added 2 references.--Indian Agent (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a quote from the google books ref? This is to figure out if there is SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what Bearian means by reliable source. I certainly think the PBS News Hour is a reliable source. As are others therein ... As far as the sources referring to statements from her ... well ... is there a news source out there that doesn't at some point quote the subject? — Maile (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Human Rights Watch Quote on ICC Palestine warrants ـ ـ Cipher Nox (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Cipher Nox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbolabo Awelewa

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

Non-notable cyber security person whose notability is anchored on his scant analysis of cyber security reports written by different groups and organizations. All are passing mentions in routine media coverage Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they fail WP:BIO. All the references in the article are either an interview with no editorial changes beyond questions/answers (and thus can't count towards notability per WP:PRIMARY), and none of them are actually about him - they're all about a cybersecurity thing, and then he's interviewed. I can't find anything beyond this besides LinkedIn, Instagram pages etc. which are all UGI. Molecular Pilot 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are sponsored articles (such as this) or just passing mentions. No independent in-depth coverage to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails ANYBIO or GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per Alexandermcnabb. Article is largely unsourced as well as having no real notable event to make them notable enough for a wikipedia article. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of oilfield service companies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.

Edit:Removed unsourced content - Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of oilfield service companies – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of oilfield service companies: As an alternative to deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Phish Volume 17

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

I am nominating the last four numbered Live Phish volumes (17, 18, 19, 20) and Live Phish 07.29.03 as they all appear to fail WP:NALBUMS due to lack of news sources talking about them, charting, or anything significant. 16 and earlier at least all charted on the Billboard 200 and received AllMusic reviews, but I haven't looked through them in detail. I came across these after noticing the article for 19 was recently recreated, with its only source being a piece on the Young Folks website about the Live Phish series written by a Phish fan/journalist, so thought it best to seek consensus on the similar articles' deletion. There just isn't any substantial coverage of these four volumes out there. The additional volumes are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, I'll admit. I tried my best to find sources for these four but there just aren't any there. My only hang-up here is it just feels weird to have individual articles for volumes 1-16 but not these last few. Personally I think it'd maybe be better to have all the volumes discussed in one article for the LivePhish series as a whole maybe? Because even for the volumes that have a little bit more coverage, there isn't exactly a whole lot to say about them. Elephantranges (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[24]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are almost entirely by him, not about him. That’s not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites are so far negligible in this high-fashion area. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only thing in the article that looks like it might lead to notability is his authorship of four books, which could pass WP:AUTHOR if we could find multiple reliably-published reviews of multiple books. But all I found was an artspeak paragraph mini-review in a book roundup [25]. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ Godzilla: Monster of Monsters. There was no consensus to keep, redirect or merge Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Godzilla: Monster of Monsters - sizable reviews in fr:Player One (magazine): [26], Mean Machines: [27] (pages 84-86), Electronic Gaming Monthly: [28]. Enough for WP:GNG. Also smaller reviews in pt:VideoGame: [29], Nintendo Power: [30]. Redirect Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel - didn't find any reviews or significant coverage for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [31],[32] Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. This is notable and can pass our guidelines/policies. And if anyone finds it too tedious to add the sources, try to tag me and I'll try to play a part as my time allows. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There might be more sources out there in addition to the ones found by Mika1h to further establish the page's overall notability. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

This event lacks in-depth, independent and significant coverage as confirmed by a search on Google News. Also, the award is given primarily for promotional purposes by entities involved in marketing which is one of the exclusionary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This overall doesn't meet WP:GNG Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how a national contest could not be notable. It also sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Also Covered in high-profile Indian media which added, kindly check. Jitujadab90 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any in-depth, independent and significant coverage on Google News. Could you kindly provide a detailed source analysis to support your vote to keep? Charlie (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Mannequin: Working Women in India's Glamour Industry" (Zubaan Books) by Manjima Bhattacharjya has 2 paragraphs on the Awards; note: the name varies a lot http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52851463.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst and is very often shortened (without Contest or without other words; sometimes longer "Gladrags magazine’s Manhunt and Megamodel Contest"). I find more coverage about individual winners (a lot) than about the Awards per se. If this is not enough, it could be redirected to the magazine (I don't think deletion is necessary) Mushy Yank (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to mention: please read the first AfD, where sources had been presented, some that I found linked also in Google Books but I cannot access fully so cannot judge. (Consider this a weak keep then). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough coverage in reliable sources as discussed in the previous deletion discussion. Although I am not able to find any recent coverage of the contest, that does not mean it was not notable before and User:Раціональне анархіст (PAX)'s comment in the previous AfD should also be considered. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gladrags as the sources within the article lack an WP:INDEPTH coverage of the subject event. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Banker, would you consider this as indepth coverage? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Inside Out 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.McYeee (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean merge [33] and [34] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Inside Out 2 article, there is no image of Anxiety from Inside Out 2 on this article. 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no image doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. What matters is the sources that meet GNG, not the images. Toby2023 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I came to tell you that I am making improvements to the article so that at least it will not be deleted. Now I want to ask @Toby2023: what he thinks about the corrections I am making. I look forward to everyone's answers and help. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can do so, i would like to see you try, if you can do a good job, we can close it as a keep. Toby2023 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about notability, something that cannot be changed by improvements to the article, only demonstration of sources. If you have found new reliable sources, you should share them here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: These are the sources I have consulted [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] and they are reliable. I will see if I can expand the article further to avoid it being deleted. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Zero sigcov. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Melee. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and expand/improve. The historical context provided already clearly goes beyond a dicdef, and it would be astonishing if there were not more sources for this concept, in light of the popularity of games using such a system. BD2412 T 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of BD2412, and I suspect I could have said the same of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee weapon if I had noticed that discussion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, those sources have not been demonstrated. Saying you assume sources will be discovered sometime in the future is not a sufficient rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar returns 21,400 hits for a search for "melee in role playing games" (notably, some specifically reference Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is a melee-themed fighting game with popular Nintendo characters, not yet mentioned in this article). BD2412 T 04:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While melee is commonly used as a term in gaming and I cannot deny that, I cannot find evidence that the term is notable in itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang book. A term has to pass GNG to have an article. Simply being used as part of an unrelated scholarly paper is an incidental and trivial use.

In terms of SSB Melee, the word is used to reference its original meaning of a physical fight. It doesn't have anything to do with the game terminology described in this article. The subsequent game is called "Brawl", also meaning a physical fight.

The best I can see for this article is being redirected to Role-playing game terms or Glossary of video game terms like many similar articles of its kind have been. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect it when there is cited content that could be merged? I could see a merge to Melee. BD2412 T 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [42]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a (gaming terminology) article, it contains significant original research. I would merge/redirect to Role-playing game terms or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ The entomology of the word is probably notable given the sources. At the least there are sources that seem count toward WP:N. A merge to Little Wars is another possibility, but I'm not thrilled with that given how short that article is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This is yet another WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Unless said sources can be definitively shown, such arguments should be seen as holding no water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to everyone: This is yet another "I didn't read the article but I have an opinion anyways" comment. What I'm trying to say is that's it's rude to talk past someone like that. The sources I'm referring to are in the article. If you don't like those sources, please explain why or ask. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit on your sources point:

-The first two sources appear to be trivial mentions that just mention that the terminology of melee was used here. Mentions like this, especially for word definitions, need to have stronger substance. If it was a full few paragraphs discussing the importance of the melee term within the context of the games, or as a whole, for example, there'd be stronger substance here.

-The second two (3 and 4) don't mention melee at all, and are just mentioning that the rules of the game made by Wells carried on afterward. This pertains to Wells's games, not to the melee terminology.

-Source 5 doesn't even mention melee, again pertaining to how the rules of Wells's games were adapted to another medium. Source 6 mentions melee, but doesn't elaborate upon them and instead is just using the terminology like a person with game familiarity would. The source isn't about melee at all, and is just stating that melee is involved with it.

Basically everything in this is a trivial mention of the term, and around half the sources don't mention the term at all. This is primarily about Wells's games, not about the term melee. There's no independent notability shown with these sources, especially given there's no real Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego has summed up my opinion on it as well, I can't disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback folks--I agree there isn't enough to meet WP:N. Limited Merge to Melee per BD2412 is where I am now. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that outcome as well. BD2412 T 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An article isn't the appropriate way to cover this. I have my doubts that this meets WP:SIGCOV without violating WP:OR, by cobbling together a lot of different sources that use this in a lot of different contexts. But there is a Glossary of video game terminology that would make a good target. I'm also open to other ideas. The point is that the topic may not even be called "melee" but also "close combat" or "swordplay" or "hack and slash", and it's better to try to create a unified topic than to have an article for every dictionary definition. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, Glossary of video game terminology would not be a good target page because it is a Redirect. It should show up as a green link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge to melee per the discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Limited participation, but I see little value in continuing to relist. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 10 independent sources in the Hebrew article, which, together, seem sufficient to establish notability. Whizkin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:

1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him

2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988

3. Doesn’t mention him

4. Passing mention in a brief listing

5. Passing mention

6. Doesn’t mention him

7. Doesn’t mention him

8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)

9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source

10. No longer accessible but looks decent.

That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers

AfDs for this article:

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

Potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, and persistent WP:BLP violation, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate !votes for the two articles:
- About Pregnancy over age 50: Merge what can be saved in Advanced maternal age, then delete. The issue of advanced age pregnancy is notable and cases of late pregnancy, if medically or otherwise notable, can be briefly discussed, but 50 is an arbitrary threshold and the list is cruft. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- About List of oldest fathers: Weak keep, after much cleanup, but I'd prefer a corresponding Advanced paternal age article instead (currently it is a redirect to Paternal age effect).--cyclopia ^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully referenced therefore meets GNG. I understand the preference for "advanced paternal age" but that is already long and doesn't really need this list. It should point to this article, however, in its See Also. Lamona (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails listing non-notable people with references, therefore it violates WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPLIST. Absolutiva (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it clearly passes the blpname test - these are named in reliable sources, there is no (AFAIK) attempt to hide the names in those sources. If any do not pass the blpname test they can be removed. That would not invalidate the list. Lamona (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~So as depend on notability in my draft article. Absolutiva (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Generally not needed for userspaces. Absolutiva (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article does not have the serious BLP violation problems as the draft in which you've tried to recreate the articles deleted here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Bonadea: There are some names of non-notable living women, it also affects BLP violation claims to Pregnancy over age 50 (including non-notable women). Absolutiva (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article mainspace can only remove non-notable names from the list, if there is serious BLP claims. Absolutiva (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I finally abandoned by draft, let's proceed to deletion (same as above). Absolutiva (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons listed above. And also because these "oldest" lists seem interesting enough to Wikipedians that there are several sourced similar lists like these. See Category:Lists of oldest people. Most of these lists have several hundred watchers. This particular list is pretty well done, and has 190 sources. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regard to the "non-notable people with references" comments. The notability of the refs is helpful: Time magazine, Guinness World Records, The Times of Israel, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CBS News, Associated Press, etc. etc. These are good sources, and verifies the notabilities. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Some list of people does not meet notability requirements for pregnancy over age 50. Also, Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability per consensus. Absolutiva (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tagged both of these articles does not meet notability guideline for stand-alone lists. Absolutiva (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of a tag being placed during discussion. Feels like an afterthought or something to do beforehand. Conyo14 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is redundant and needs to be removed. If the result of this AFD is to keep the article, the comment looks like you are trying to have your result, regardless. If the AFD results in the article being deleted, then that note served no purpose. Please remove it. — Maile (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag. I have no opinion whatsoever on this list, myself but the tag seemed redundant, especially as it had been added by the nominator and after nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NLIST as each claim is sourced. There are a lot of sources out there to confirm these lists, but for the article, it probably needs to be trimmed to reduce which are reliable claims and which are not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mee Massa (TV series)

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

Another draft that was moved back into mainspace. It's not very well sourced, and a Google search turns up little to nothing (YouTube videos, etc.). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sri Lanka. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, this nomination was made after a discussion with Afrowriter on my talk page. Here's a direct link to the discussion and here's a diff of the discussion that's happened as of the nomination. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sirasa TV: the cast includes at least two rather notable actors and add one of the existing sources for verification (https://mirrorarts.lk/news/9458-2024-08-22-05-02-08 ; https://www.silumina.lk/2024/09/28/rasanduna/25979/මට-හිතාගන්න-බැහැ-බිමල්-නැ/ for example) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually avoid participating in Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, as I prefer to concentrate on creating and enhancing articles about notable subjects but i we go for Delete: Per nom as it lacks WP:SIGCOV there seems to be no review about the Series Afro 📢Talk! 01:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reviews and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. A redirect to Sirasa TV does not work. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [43]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)

etc.

What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to delete - the other universities and the Military Academy and Naval Academy are not mentioned there but are in List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges. If the only coverage was when it was closed down, it can be redirected to the list. Peter James (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kazankova

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

WP:NACTOR significance is not shown.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One really significant role only but better-known as a freediver: https://www.deeperblue.com/marina-kazankova-attempts-a-4th-guinness-world-record/ https://www.sportalsub.net/en/guinness-apnea-carlos-coste-y-marina-kazankova/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584917/Freediving-duo-set-Guinness-World-Record-longest-underwater-dance.html https://tribune.com.pk/story/1888204/freediving-duo-set-world-record-longest-underwater-dance https://nofilmschool.com/2015/06/highly-suspect-4-minute-music-video-shot-one-take-under-water-red-epic-dragon-6k Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Alien Exorcism and The Time Guardians (Passes GNG through reviews here, here and here). May also pass GNG as there are sources here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources cited in the prior two replies. Not sure why this was relisted rather than just closed as keep. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect to Nana Kwame Bediako where subject is already mentioned. I wouldn't object to adding a few words to characterise Kriese there. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radda Novikova

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

Russian film director. The importance of a serial (mostly) director is extremely questionable. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted [44].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be kept because the director in question has a significant body of work, having directed multiple popular television sitcoms in Russia, a major media market. Furthermore, she has received international recognition, with awards that affirm her notability beyond national boundaries. There are plenty of references from major outlets, including Cosmopolitan and RIA Novosti. The fact that the Russian Wikipedia chose to delete the article does not diminish her achievements, as Wikipedia in different languages may have unique standards or biases—this is the English Wikipedia, which evaluates notability from an international perspective and should base its decision on the director's clear contributions to the industry and documented impact, not on the editorial decisions of other Wikipedias. It is also unfortunate to delete a page about a notable female director, as representation in media coverage is essential to recognizing the contributions of women in film and television, especially in an industry where they are historically underrepresented. Er nesto (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she does seem to meet the applicable guideline, WP:DIRECTOR with various seasons or the totality of notable TV series. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nisma Thurje as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources do not have to be in English. They do, however, have to be substantive, meaning that they have to contain detailed coverage and analysis about him doing something noteworthy, and it isn't enough that sources can be found which just happen to have his name in them. For instance, an article "about" public opinion polling on his popularity or unpopularity does not support notability, and a very short blurb about him commenting on something that happened to somebody else does not support notability. He has to be the subject (not the speaker) of a reasonably long and detailed (not a short blurb) piece of coverage and analysis about him (not just featuring him giving a soundbite comment about somebody else) before that source starts to support notability, and even then there have to be several sources of that high calibre (not just one) before he's cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. per nominator request — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Klaffner

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

Does not meet notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Additional references, albeit all from none English language sources, have been added and it seems, judging by other experiences, the bar is impossibly high to get a tennis article deleted so I withdraw my nomination. Shrug02 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Jevansen (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thales, Indiana

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

Again with the citation saying, "this is not a settlement": in this case the 1910 county history says it was a post office, and judging from the "house in the middle of nowhere" site, I see no reason to disagree. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This place was known as "Hickory Grove" until 1895 [45]. It had a school [46], a post office, and general store [47]. I have been unable to find any source stating this was a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPLACE which says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Per WP:NPLACE and WP:GNIS the GNIS reference doesn't count as legal recognition and as it's unincorporated I don't think there's any other recognition (open to being corrected here by someone more familiar with the US). Thus it falls back onto WP:GNG and I can't find anything to meet that - all references have passing references of this place, mainly being about Dubious Country, thus not meeting WP:SIGCOV Molecular Pilot 07:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I couldn't find anything much beyond the references in my own search! :) Molecular Pilot 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was not aware of the detail in WP:CORPTRIV. If nothing else can be found it should probably be deleted, then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH may not fully meet RSP standards, even if written by a staff writer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/			✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/	Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH	Trivial coverage on funding	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/		Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about TechCrunch's reliability and revenue volume suggest a lack of understanding of the source assessment table provided above and the guidelines on trivial coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just represent a difference of opinion in how to apply the community standards. The TC story is in depth and editorial in nature. And because we’re not a group of deeply confused people who think large sums of money are irrelevant to business notability, pointing out hundreds of millions in revenue is a useful reference point for the importance of the underlying subject. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest

[2] Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03

[3] "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03

[4] "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03

[5] "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03

[6] Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uvolit Zhoru}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoé Kézako}}<!--Relisted-->