Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 13	August 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. given sources brought up here and added to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this page was up for deletion. I would recommend you keep it. I think there are actually many articles on this topic as a major CDC initiative for syndromic surveillance including in depth reviews for instance several:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15714629/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28692386/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177704/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177687/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635001/

Examples of use in literature

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21128815/

I think probably less likely to receive mention in popular press but certainly not in academic press. I think the nomination as passing mentions would be disingenuous most the articles discuss the system extensively. All are published in reputable journals for the field.

in particular popular medical articles

e.g. JAMA https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/183185

and Lancet infectious disease also have covered issues with the program

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(06)70485-6/abstract Dotingacademic (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in some popular media; but rarely

E.g.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/04/syndromic-surveillance-useful-to-track-pandemics-like-covid-19.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114186869834793251

Or

Judith Graham Ronald Kotulak, T. staff reporters. (2004). Bioterror detectors go high-tech ; Research focuses on earlier warning: Chicago Final Edition. Chicago Tribune available through proquest. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also in the Scientist Biosense or Biononsense,

https://www.proquest.com/docview/200056066

Describes the shortcomings - misflagged outbreaks etc. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more closure opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company per above comments has received some media coverage. Might be notable and some new sources might be added too. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. There do seem to be a lot of sources directly focusing on this initiative in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 17 August 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 List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of Doctor Who episodes that might feature a robot. Wikipedia doesn't support repeated WP:SYNTH lists where editors research patterns across television episodes. Editors should fix the main character list instead of expanding their flaws across multiple faulty lists. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting a well-established article that has been refined and improved by numerous contributors, and which many users find valuable, undermines the collective effort and the utility it provides.

2. Wikipedia's scope has expanded, allowing for more inclusive content. Articles that were deleted a decade ago due to non-notability are now encouraged and considered relevant.

3. While source citations were less emphasized when I initially created the article, contributors have since verified and corrected any inaccuracies, ensuring the article's reliability. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well established articles don't exactly get a free pass from discussions about their quality and issues they may have on the website. They need to be verifiable and notable to continue to exist on the website.
While true, that is primarily due to new sources being discovered allowing for more revivals on articles where that sourcing did not exist at the time, not due to any laxing of restrictions.
There are only four citations on the article, and many entries are unsourced and are only a redirect to another topic they're a part of. Even if this is kept, it needs a major overhaul to verify its contents as a whole.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any articles on robotic characters in the various books discussing Doctor Who's science? I recall seeing at least one or two, but searching for them proves difficult given that most searches for "Doctor Who robot" tends to just pull results from the episode Robot (Doctor Who). If nothing else can be found I'd suggest a partial merge to list of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, as several of these characters (Such as Autons, Yeti, and Quarks) do have associations with several entries currently on the list, with some of the robots that are considered species potentially being included in that list as well (Such as the Roboforms, Sandminer Robots, Mechonoids, for example). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: The Science of Doctor Who has two chapters on the topic, "What are Doctor Who's most memorable robots" and "Do androids dream of Doctor Who?", but I cannot access them to see how much material there is. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the major robots to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is a good idea. Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively, per Toughpigs. Some of these have WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE, which fails WP:LISTN as such a narrow spinoff of characters. If we're looking for one list to cover these characters, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens seems like it's constructed in a neutral way that's consistent with the sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Much better than keeping or deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a fan wiki and I don't see any mergeable content within the article. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no objection if specific, sourced entries for specific robots were added to the List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, but given that this list consists of entries that are either nothing but links to episodes or unsourced material, I don't think using this as a basis for a Merge would be appropriate for that. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Simply not enough references to make this notable as a separate article. Original research is an issue. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens for the groups and List of Doctor Who supporting characters for the major individuals, to help both targets become more complete either with regard to navigation or the little information we have attributed to secondary sources here. There are many secondary sources for this topic, but with exception of The Science of Doctor Who most of what I have seen discuss individual entries rather than the robots as a group. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 21 August 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) asilvering (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakri pakohi

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. C F A 💬 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed as a panchayat under the name of Pakari Pakohi, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: since it is officially recognized as a panchyat. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 August 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. Valid arguments on all sides, but after a month of debate, no consensus emerged. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards

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

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST for navigation reasons. Not all years for the awards have their page but that's not a reason to delete those that exist. See category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."

I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, effectively unsourced. Snarky mind-reading comments not withstanding, even a breakout list requires reasonable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft: ? I mean there are sources about who won what award, but just having a wall of text in fancy boxes isn't helping. This needs adequate sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Asianet Film Awards: A notable event requires wp:INDEPTH coverage that preferably lasts. The criteria is not quite achieved through "Winners Lists" on a few niche websites published only in the year of the ceremony. @Mushy Yank, it seems the other ones in the category have varied coverage. Such as https://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/regional/asianet-ropes-in-11-sponsors-for-17th-aisanet-film-awards-150122 for the 17th one. It doesn’t look like the 21st does. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. The target article already has the winners for the awards listed, so there's nothing to merge that would fit there. Nominees who did not win aren't listed for any of the years of any of the awards on the target page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This meets WP:LISTCRIT, but needs adequate sourcing. Do not merge because having each award year-by-year is a different and valuable way of presenting information, rather than by award as the main list does. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It meets criteria to be a standalone list possibly, but does not meet the notability requirements. It still needs references that discuss it as a whole. Unfortunately, I did a WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything that could be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is justified merely as a navigation aid. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 23 August 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. czar 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hynek Štichauer

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields zero. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the Czech team that rode in the 2023 World Cup (the pinnacle of speedway alongside the Grand Prix), has also ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have added multiple non primary sources to article.

Delete. Of the non-stats refs, this is a routine transactional interview with a team promoter (primary, non-independent)

; this is a routine transactional interview with a club owner

; this is a brief transactional press release; and this is a passing mention in an injury update. Nowhere close to SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay analysis. FromCzech (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:22, 21 August 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 FBI Laboratory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Victims Identification Project

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

Redirect into FBI Laboratory. One of many projects within the FBI Laboratory with a dearth of secondary coverage in WP:RS that don't establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete or redirect. Agree with the lack of coverage. There is at least one citation and a nice image. I can start the process. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I done did it pet WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD isn't how AFD discussions work, though, it's easier for everyone if you just wait Mrfoogles (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Very little coverage, makes sense to list under Projects in the FBI Lab article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:55, 20 August 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. Given that this is the third creation of this page by the same editor, I will be applying extended confirmed protection to this title. RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Anderson (soccer)

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see any notability, either through achievements or through sources. The article states something about trading cards, which doesn't contribute to notability. I don't know whether this is the same article that was discussed in the 1st and 2nd nomination. Feel free to G4. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its the same ones before, it's hard to find stuff on Reno 1868 anymore since the team went defunct. It was easy to find some of his stuff on official released trading cards, then the simpson university NAIA head coaching job and holding his USSF a license, the same article says he was a member of the Chicago Fire Pro MLS team as well as played for SJSU.

I just saw he didn't have an article. he's just one of the obscure players, and he came up on reddit for not having one so i made one. I've been a long time wiki reader and edit some stuff here and there but finally logged into make an account. CardzRC (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He also has a very common name so a lot of ian andersons out there. CardzRC (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing some things up. And welcome to Wikipedia! When someone doesn't have an article, sometimes there is a reason for that, though. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Lots of American MLS/USL players who are very obscure i noticed don't have pages, but they sit on rosters and find themselves filling out rosters all there career. MLS / USL is a very different compared to the most established leagues in the world. I hope they can be recognized for their accomplishments.

And thanks, I love wiki. I'm a soccer history buff lol CardzRC (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know how to cite a source from a physical game program or media guide. Which people do have those, and I can get access to. CardzRC (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSA also doesn't authenticate non athletics/celebrity signatures/memorabilia either, someone posted that on reddit the certification for him, so I was able to research the serial number and did locate he does infact have a SJ Earthquakes jersey in their archive CardzRC (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material issued by clubs, leagues and the players themselves (social media etc) are considered primary sources and do not contribute to notability. American soccer is not that different from other leagues, in that if you play well, you get covered by media, which then leads to an encyclopedic article built on secondary sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. No significant coverage to meet GNG at this time. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:44, 19 August 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 Ascendant (2021 film)#Cast. czar 21:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karelina Clarke

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

Does not match WP:ENT Bulklana (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Bulklana (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascendant (2021 film) where she plays (a young version) of the main character's sister. Probably Too Soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the redirect recommendation above, but would also support a delete recommendation. In either case, she doesn’t meet notability guidelines to merit an individual article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ with consent of article creator and virtually no other edits, so essentially a G7. Star Mississippi 00:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Strommer

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an American figure skater, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I located was probably this. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which say that SIGCOV is likely to exist. I was unable to find any. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I am only finding trivial mentions such as [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All junior level except a local competition, lacks significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Summer Championships are an international competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A search in multiple newspaper archives failed to come up with anything of note. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not come close to meeting notability guidelines and only had passing media mentions. Fails to have a requisite number of RS mentions of substance. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's fine if it gets deleted. I've saved the coding and can reconstruct the article in the future if and when circumstances improve. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 17 August 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavík International School

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

I'm unable to locate any sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Iceland. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article, the school existed for 3 years and only had about a dozen students each year. The only source that isn't their own website is a government statistical database. Search results generally are referring to International School of Iceland or are Wikipedia mirrors. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this one at the moment, which is not where I expected to be given the tiny number of children and short period the school was open. I have three additional sources, which I'm fairly sure are all about this specific school:

This is a passing mention of the school in a brief article about a child winning a prize. It does not add to notability and I'm mentioning it for completeness.

This, in Vísir, is significant coverage in a reliable, independent source.

This also looks like decent coverage in a reliable source, Morgunblaðið.

Even accepting both those, we only have the defunct school website, archive here, and the stats report - the former definitely being a primary source, the latter more of a grey area - so not reaching WP:THREE, but will see what others say. Tacyarg (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability requires more than passing mentions. The Iceland Review is a passing mention about a student coming second in a competition. This in Visir is a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the school and their principal, it has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject which is part of the criteria for "Independent Content". Finally this magazine article in Morgunblaðið suffers the same faults - a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the teachers/school and with no in-depth "Independent Content" from a source unaffiliated with the school. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Weak keep. The weekly paper Reykjavík had a couple of stories regarding the founding of the school (Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi and Tókst ekki hjá Reykjavík). This is another story from Morgunblaðið. Also seems to have been known as Alþjóðaskólinn í Reykjavík. Alvaldi (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics require in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability and we do not consider information regurgitated from company documents or interviews, etc. Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi simply repeats information from the founding docs files on incorporation (says it several times in the article). This story in Timarit is about the school (unsuccessfully to date) looking for a place from which to operate and yes, the school is mentioned, but it contains insufficient in-depth information about the school. This other story in Timarit is reporting on the signing of the contract for the school and reports on who attended, where it is based, the number of students and teachers, the canteen, the subjects and the length of contract - all information provided by the school during this event and no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three secondary sources cited offer some suggestion of notability, but it's just not enough to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:ORG. If there was something in this article demonstrating noteworthiness, I might give it the benefit of the doubt, but it was a short-lived small school that was visited by some minor dignitaries – so what? Ultimately, I don't see why this should be included in a global encyclopaedia, with at best borderline proof of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 21 August 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!} 23:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Arben

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

Lacks independent, sig/in-depth coverage in RS and does not meet NMODEL. Earlier PROD'd by @Voorts: Flagged as UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per my PROD and nom. The sources that were added since my PROD are either unreliable or borderline and don't contain significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this meets WP:NMODEL. According to WP:NMODEL: This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: (1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

In this case of this young model, Natasha Arben as I read from the page, she "has appeared in the Frontis Piece of Country Life Magazine,^[1] and has appeared on the front covers of L'Officiel Monaco,^[2], L’Officiel Cyprus^[3] and L’Officiel Ibiza.^[4]"

For me, these features can be classified as significant roles according to WP:NMODEL. She didn't pay the magazines to feature her on their covers. She earned these organically and meritoriously as a professional model. This is the major reason I de-prodded the page. Let other editors weigh in on this. Maltuguom (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltuguom, I don't believe the coverage meets the GNG. The coverage stem from interviews, which is not independent of the subject. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She might meet notability with the covers above, but you still need sourcing that talks about her. I don't find sources that talk about her, outside of photospreads or celebrity gossip articles. Nothing found for extensive coverage of her in RS Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 14 August 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!} 04:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitab-Verlag

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

I can't find anything on this book publisher to establish its notability. The one source in the page is brief but reliable, but only one source, in addition to one I added which is also brief. However as with all book publishing companies finding sources is extremely annoying as there are many usages of it when books it published were cited by others, so there could be other things out there. They seem to be not insignificant so it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Austria. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search on News brings entirely nothing. Its article on de-wiki only shows two sources which are not reliable sources as one is its own website and the other redirects to the very same web. I couldn't find news etc., but was able to find mentions of the company in its books it publishes. I will go with delete for now.-Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:11, 7 August 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!} 19:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references which meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 15 August 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 Cushing's syndrome (veterinary). czar 21:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Cushing's Syndrome

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

AI translated article from German Wikipedia and duplicate of an existing article Cushing's syndrome (veterinary). Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what’s the deletion rationale? Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of an existing article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect User:Renanalmeids, I take it you didn't realize the article already existed when you translated it? Please merge any relevant information that isn't in the preexisting article and then redirect this title. Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect kind of a no-brainer. Possibly a redirect would have avoided this. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 17 August 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana)

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

Fails GNG, no inline refs or citations, but contains content that can be mergeable into another article. Intrisit (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is mergable, then the content should be merged into the other article and then redirected to the merged article. ~ GB fan 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a Merge is suggested but no Merge target article identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target? Please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether or not the current article has refs, much less inline refs (though desirable), does not affect whether a topic meets or can meet GNG. It has been used as the home ground for multiple football teams (interlinking is beneficial), and I'm seeing enough English language coverage on GNews[2] as well as some GBook fragments[3][4] to convince me there's going to be more Ghanaian coverage in local languages and/or offline over the ~85 years of its existence. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've updated the article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the WP:SIGCOV in sources provided by Hydronium Hydroxide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Hydronium Hydroxide. Suonii180 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Dawn Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions. toweli (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Internet, and Germany. toweli (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, backed up by my own WP:BEFORE search Mach61 00:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels; has few or no notable artists, and it's somewhat telling that there's no page in German for the label. Chubbles (talk) 13:36, 15 August 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 14:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Senior Secondary School, Kanpur

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The 1 source provided merely confirms someone attended this school. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL.--Ciudatul (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:NSCHOOL. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:43, 19 August 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!} 00:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Watson

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

Similiar reason to nominate as this nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Metcalfe (2nd nomination)

Sources are dubious at best - the Telegraph and Auto Trader source is about a TV show in some minor-league TV station that doesn't warrant notability. His recent presenting job in Carwow only warrant notability on its own page, not on this. Hobbyist sources such as autoevolution are dubious at best. Quality of that page is dubious at best. A check per WP:BEFORE do not show much any reliable sources at all. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST.

WP:ATD will be merge to carwow SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Transportation, and United Kingdom. C F A 💬 03:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article look like announcements and others the writings of the subject. Search returns nothing tangible Ednabrenze (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge to Carwow
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe a merge is the appropriate decision here. Per the nomination, this article doesn’t appear to meet the requirements for a Wiki article and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:55, 17 August 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. czar 21:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afsheen (musician)

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

The creating editor has had this draft declined several times at WP:AFC and has expressed the firm opinion that it should be in mainspace in its current form. They have the right to disagree with reviewers. I have accepted the draft and am submitting it to AfD on the simple basis that the several reviewers who declined it may have a different view from the community. Consensus is our governing mantra, and will be formed now. I view this as a very poorly referenced offering that does not verify its subject's notability. I have reviewed each of the 22 alleged references. Of the 22 I find only a couple that have any form of real coverage about Afsheen, several which are track listings, which add no clue to verifying notability, several more which are pure churnalism - breathy notices of new releases, at least one which has no mention of Afsheen, several interviews with Asheen (we have no interest in what he says, we are only interested in what is said about him.) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting. I strongly believe it meets the WP:COMPOSER I added CD as sources, and ask you to check those before voting. Those are also included in over 20 wikipedia articles about his work.

Criteria for composers and lyricists

WP:COMPOSER

For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - "there are over 20 notable composition that even have their own WIKIPEDIA articles." Mentioned in over 23 sources I added to the article.
Has written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.

J2009j (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should be interpreted as a Keep opinion. Doubtless J2009j will confirm this by adding "Keep" in bold to their input. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely 🥸.I did not know WP:COMPOSER exists. J2009j (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask @Oaktree b, whom I saw many times on the delete page to review this and WP:COMPOSER, and criteria #1 if he has time, please. I am actually tired for this category being ignored every time I ask. J2009j (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability of any flavour, be it WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE or otherwise. The fundamental problem here is that an association with several notable musicians and/or musical works is being whipped up to a claim of share-of-notability for everyone involved, as in the old proverb that "success has many fathers" etc., which just doesn't cut it. This individual may well be talented, for all I know, and might one day become notable, but just isn't there yet. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi! I think you deliberately ignored my comment about WP:COMPOSER criteria #1, because you declined my draft. Rules are the same for all. If I see something wrong, I say it, and I believe it is fine to point it out. I may not be an editor with many years of experience- but this is the rule about WP:COMPOSER J2009j (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also produced a few dozen song so also meets WP:CREATIVE. You can check that in Discography, with all the CDs. I believe you did not check.

You also contradict yourself with this "share-of notability". What do the rules say- "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."

Same goes to composer, he wrote alone and in team "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition".

Let's be objective. If you do not like someone's article, it does not mean you should make claims that are clearly false, and contradict Wikipedia rules.

The person wrote a dozen songs that have wikipedia page - and you write "I know, and might one day become notable, but just isn't there yet." But I see editors who decline this draft, accept this one Ryan Trey. That is clearly bias, so I am defending it. I hope all can make objective decisions. Thanks <3 J2009j (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now warned J2009j twice for their personal attacks on DoubleGrazing. I hope this behaviour will now cease. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So let's respect policies and WP:COMPOSER and other rules.⭐️ J2009j (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ignoring their interjection above, they have reached an L3 warning for personal attacks on DoubleGrazing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I suspect a possible WP:COI, WP:UPE, it's normal to fight for the notability of a draft/article. With regards to that, I sense a bit notability in the draft but not enough to meet WP:GNG. For now, he hasn't been covered significantly in multiple reliable sources (interviews aren't part of them). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add the I made a point about WP:COMPOSER, as it meets it. I added multiple reliable sources such as CD with work credits. J2009j (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet any SNGs, ANYBIO, or GNG. The creator has repeatedly tried to convince me that they meet WP:NMUSICIAN #2, #8, #10, #11, etc. They do not. They are listed as a producer on some songs that meet those criteria, but Afsheen is not the musician and it does not really help their notability. There are a few trivial mentions in reliable sources, and a few pieces in random blogs. Not enough to meet GNG or write a verifiable article. To the creator: the amount of review requests you've sent to editors is crazy. More than half your live contributions are talk page review requests about various drafts of yours. You've asked for a review of this draft twice on Timtrent's talk page, three times on SafariScribe's talk page, on Randompersonediting's talk page, on Wikishovel's talk page, on Shenaall's talk page, on Theroadislong's talk page, once on Paper9oll's talk page, on Bsoyka's talk page, on Qcne's talk page, on my talk page, two times at the AfC help desk, and at the Teahouse. This is textbook forum shopping and you've already been warned about this. The only times I've seen editors so concerned about re-reviews and waiting have been when they have had financial stakes in the topic. C F A 💬 21:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a category it meets, which you seem to ignore. WP:COMPOSER. I believe it exists on Wikipedia for this specific case. I added multiple reliable sources such as CD with work credits. I did not like it when I saw the editor Safari accepted this article Ryan Trey, while declining mine. This reminded me of some kind of financial stakes. Correct me if I am wrong. I am open to discuss. This article is only based on interviews on random sites, and yet all my question regarding the category of composers I found were ignored by same editors who know each other. I believe it is more than fair for me to express these concerns.
Why there is such a category like WP:COMPOSER on Wikipedia then if main editors just ignore my questions about it?
For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.
Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - "there are over 20 notable composition that even have their own WIKIPEDIA articles." Mentioned on the official CD records, and over 23 sources I added to the article.
J2009j (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to you none of these songs are "notable compositions"? Afsheen (musician)#Discography? J2009j (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I have p-blocked J2009j from this page to allow consensus to form. I have also warned them that if disruption moves elsewhere, the block will be broadened. Star Mississippi 01:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the now-blocked editor has asked me to comment; I'm not sure we have notability, but the Latin Grammy nomination would imply MUSIC notability. I've not reviewed the sources to confirm how useful they are however. I'll report back in a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the Latin Grammy website confirms he was nominated. Unfortunately, there aren't enough sources to support notability. This [5] and [6], neither of which are reliable sources per Project Album [7], which I've used to review past musical articles here. Being nominated for a Latin Grammy is an indicator of notability, but we still need sourcing that discusses the subject at hand. I tend to agree that most of the sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful and not in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What the creator misses is that qualifying under WP:COMPOSER doesn't mean the subject is automatically considered notable, but merely a sign that the subject may be notable. But reliable sources covering this subject beyond credits to verify their existence and contribution are incredibly sparse. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not able to establish notability, nomination rationale is on point, and other delete voters have said everything. Tehonk (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoffeeCrumbs' reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 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. czar 21:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo mill

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

Unsourced article - could not find sources to establish notability LR.127 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find hits on a brewery or a bakery [8], [9], neither of which describe this "thing". I don't see notability for this unsourced article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Photo mill and found several small photography services, unrelated to the article. The only other mentions I could find was on Quora and a blog. Knitsey (talk) 20:42, 14 August 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 Descendants of Ibn Saud#Wadha bint Muhammad Al Orair. czar 21:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadha bint Muhammad Al Orair

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

Redirect to Descendants of Ibn Saud where the article subject is already covered. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Non-notable member of the Saudi royal family and coverage is either WP:ROUTINE engagements or in relation to her family lineage, not WP:SIGCOV on her as a notable individual. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Descendants of Ibn Saud. Agree with nom, but there's also some sourced info in this article that could be used in the target article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 21 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa bint Abdulaziz Al Saud

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

Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability, and thus coverage of her, is due to her relation to notable members of the Saudi royal family or her family lineage. She's not notable as the daughter of a King of Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything suggesting that she's of note in her own right. The article itself practically asks us to reach this conclusion as, except for the very last sentence, it's no more than an enumeration of who she's related to. The only thing it says about her in her own right as that she donates to universities. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Descendants_of_Ibn_Saud#Hussa Al Sudairi where she gets a mention and is in the only context for which she is notable. I would have said "Merge" if there had been anything useful, like her dates, to add to that list entry. PamD 08:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominater. Azarctic (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coachman

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

Non-notable political candidate. Of the 25 sources cited on the page: 1 is his campaign website, 4 are election results pages, 1 is a poll, 2 are Ballotpedia, 5 are brief WP:ROTM articles about him declaring his candidacy, 1 is about the recall he started and includes quotes from him, and 6 don't even mention Coachman. The remaining 3 are more in-depth articles from local outlets focusing on his attempted recall or the time he tried to arrest city council members. Coachman certainly rises above the level of a random perennial candidate, but that's not enough for notability, and I don't think he meets WP:GNG based on the coverage I'm seeing here. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe this person meets GNG nor do I believe any past or current candidacies will be notable to the historical record (i.e. 10 year test).--Mpen320 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is described as a "perennial candidate", which seems apt. He runs and loses - and loses big. Nothing that he has done here is notable. If for some reason his run for governor should result in significant press, an article might be plausible. In the very unlikely event that he would win, then an article would definitely be in order. Lamona (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is hard not to see this article as part of his campaign, given the timing. (This month) Lamona (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far, the editor who created the page does a lot of editing on North Dakota election pages. They probably just (mistakenly) thought Coachamn was notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be no debate about this one. Per the facts laid out in the nomination, this is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:58, 18 August 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REM (magazine)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/REM (Real Estate Magazine)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Couldn't find any significant coverage of the magazine at all. An AfD closed as no consensus in 2009 but there was no actual evidence as to how this meets GNG/NCORP. Nothing has changed since then. C F A 💬 16:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 16:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, they've suspended publication [10].. This appears to be a trade publication, which generally can't be used for establishing notability; I can't find anything else about this publication in other media. It all hits on the American band of the same name. I wonder if Kenneth has found that frequency yet... Regardless, nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero evidence of, or even claim for, notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this passes WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or any other SNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirkian Mohammadi

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

I had a look at the sources and had a little look on google, but I simply don't see the article passing the general criteria for even basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability.Tehonk (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Master and Margarita.‎ The nominator basically withdrew the deletion nomination by !voting to redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita (Master and Margarita)

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

What little information is here has already been covered by the main article, The Master and Margarita. An individual article for this character is not necessary. candent_shlimazel (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Master and Margarita along with the other characters. Based on the interwikis and substantial other-lang wiki articles, I am confident that this can actually be developed into a proper stand-alone article. But since its creation over 10 years ago, its just been a plot-heavy stub/start-class. No need for a separate article at this point. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sgeureka. WP:BEFORE doesn't show sources, but it's possible something might exist in other languages. Redirect at least preserves the history. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes more sense. I agree and support this rather than my original proposed deletion. candent_shlimazel (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football leagues by media rights deals

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

This feels like a breach of WP:OR, I honestly don't see the encyclopaedic value for this article. Wikipedia is not Forbes. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GiantSnowman. Please help me understand as this is one of my first article creation (and my first one with a deletion discussion). I created this article as "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country", an article that has been in existence for 6 years, had similar content but solely focused on domestic rights and not international rights. What would make this older article notable and not this new one? Both have multiple seemingly reliable sources (AP, Reuters, CNN, ESPN, NYT etc). Thank you in advance for your help. Cgixn (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any coverage of these deals as a group; fails WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NLIST as above. Prices are dynamic and change from season to season. Svartner (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Svartner. Could you guide me as to why "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country" complies with WP:NLIST but not "List of football leagues by media rights deals"? Thanks for the help. Cgixn (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joseph2302, I wish to ask the same question as to the other reviewer. What makes "List of football leagues by media rights deals" fail these but not "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country"? Thank you in advance. Cgixn (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NLIST; the topic of media rights deals is not notable, therefore the list is not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle in Espoo

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

Fails GNG and NSPORT, title appears to be synthesized Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Finland. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no mention of "Miracle in Espoo" in any reliable sources. The game existed with scores verified, but without significant coverage it does not deserve its own article. The title "Miracle in Espoo" appears to be synthesized, and is not a viable option for a redirect. Brief mention of this can be included at Finland women's national ice hockey team, but a standalone article is not merited. Flibirigit (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find two mentions of this name, one of them being in a Facebook post. Doesn't meet the standards of an article in Wikipedia. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 20 August 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dooby Duck's Disco Bus

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG.

Opening an AfD instead of PROD or a redirect since it did run for a few years I felt it wouldn't be an uncontroversial delete/redirect.

However, if a satisfactory redirect could be found I would be comfortable with that. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Toys, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC children's television programmes is a good place to redirect Dooby Duck's Disco Bus. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion. Added 2 references, that can be transferred if the page is redirected; with this (from the BBC website). I would tend to think this could be kept, though.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Dwanyewest asked me to look for sources.
1. "Have duck — will travel?". The Journal. 1990-01-23. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2024-08-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The BBC's Dooby Duck. currently starring on children's television and one of the panto stars at the Sunderland Empire, is certainly a busy little bird these days. His starring role with Les Dawson in the Empire's production of Jack and the Beans talk hasn't been his only panto engagement this Christmas. Dooby Duck is also appearing in London with Frank Bruno and Michael Barrymore in the Dominion Theatre's record-breaking run of Aladdin. That's not all. The high-flying TV duck is also starring at the Bristol Hippodrome with Su Pollard in Dick Whittington. Three pantomimes—admittedly hundreds of miles apart—would seem to be living dangerously. Will the real Dooby Duck stand up? Or should we tell the children? Dooby Duck is the creation of Roger Stevenson and Harry Stuart, two inventive puppeteers, based in Southport, who first hit the Big Time in 1978 ..."
2. "Christmas quackers". Manchester Evening News. 1990-12-20. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2024-08-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "With a waddle and a quack, Dooby Duck stepped out of the chorus and into the spotlight. Now, this Southport-born feathered super duck, is not only a hit with kids but also a cult with those old enough to know better. Dooby—one of the stars of this year's Manchester Palace pantomime—is the creation of Southport-based Roger Stevenson and his partner Harry Stuart. Dooby's first 13-part BBC TV series, Dooby Duck's Disco Bus, was such a success it has just been repeated, a second series has been recorded and starts in January and a third is being prepared. Roger, a Peter Pan-ish 48-year-old says: ... Until Dooby's success, Roger and Harry were known under the banner Pepe And Friends, a lively, full-stage puppet act that has graced TV, theatre and cabaret across the globe. They have been hits at several Royal Variety Shows, appeared in front of Mrs Thatcher at No. 10 and rubbed shoulders with the exotic Bluebell Girls."
3. "1993 Plays and Players article". Plays and Players. 1993. Retrieved 2024-08-15 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Dooby Duck and his Disco Friends, in fact, as operated by ace-puppeteers Roger Stevenson and Harry Stuart, impress far more than their human counterparts. The real centre of the show is Michael Barrymore's Wishee Washee, and such is the force of his centrifuge that everyone else in the show is ruthlessly hurled from his limelight. Barrymore is undoubtedly an accomplished and confident comedian and whether you find him as risible as the Black Death is beside the point. Here, he contorts his body magnificently, times his gags impeccably and establishes a rapport with the audience like their oldest pal. But there's a maleficent streak of racism in his unpleasant joshings with an imaginary Libyan in the audience and his line that he can't marry the Princess' handmaiden because she's 'deaf and dumb' is, at the most generous estimation, breathtakingly tactless. But the producers might argue that this kind of thing, along with the awful songs and general tawdriness, is as traditional as the Great British Banger. Couldn't the EC intervene?"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dooby Duck to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources focus on the "Dooby Duck" franchise, so the page could be renamed to Dooby Duck. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am even more convinced this should be kept now that Cunard has presented more sources. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed above are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn due to sources identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:37, 15 August 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 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LAM Mozambique Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is supposed to be a list of place LAM flew to in February 2021, but instead is largely a list of places that LAM wasn't flying to in February 2021, as is indicated by the majority of them being listed as "terminated". Without these the list would be quite short and redundant given the coverage already on the LAM Mozambique Airlines page. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly to.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. The listing also includes original research since services are claimed to have been terminated or still operated in February 2021 without any source explicitly saying so, based on comparison of decades-old timetables.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old LAM timetables, the Aeroroutes.com blog, and old copies of Flight International's world airline directory. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor is the directory since it was written entirely using material from the airline. Additionally the directory simply listed the details of every airline regardless of notability making it an indiscriminate source, the equivalent of a Yellow Pages listing. Finally Flight International is trade-press coverage and the listing of destinations provided in it is not significant coverage since it is a single-paragraph bare listing without commentary. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Africa. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. The current destinations are just the airline's route map in list form. In addition I see no need to record every single city this airline has ever flown to. By contrast the parent article does a nice job of discussing the evolution of LAM's route network over the decades.
Regarding original research, I'm not entirely sure it's present. I think the idea is if a destination appears in an old route map but not in the current one, that means it was terminated. So technically you would have to cite both route maps and expect the reader to infer what you mean. I guess that would be considered OR, but for me the larger issue is that a list of every destination in history is a case of IINFO. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think without question taking two primary sources and then inferring something they don't actually say (and for which there are other explanations) is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Actually this goes for every item on the list, not just the "terminated" ones, since they are all based on a primary source having said that a service was on offer years ago, and assuming it was still on offer in August 2024. I agree that WP:IINFO/WP:NOTDB is probably a bigger issue. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per my comments at other AfDs WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here, but it's not well sourced enough for me to make a good argument for keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 19 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of Fools

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a band, deleted in 2007 at AfD but recreated. I can’t see any sources that would make it pass WP:NMUSIC. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing's changed since the previous deletion. I've checked Rock's Back Pages via Wikipedia library for sources and found nothing. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The band got a video played but attracted little media coverage in their time, and now they are only visible in various retail and streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no coverage to be found for this musical group. I don't see anything in Gnews, books or scholar... Nothing even comes up during a normal google search. The sources used now in the article are streaming sites and a concert venue, simply not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 14 August 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 Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction. If someone writes an article about the book, the redirect could be re-targeted. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction. We can always expand it back out if anyone finds some sigcov. No one's managed it in 20 years, so. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 21 August 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 Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax

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

Not every hoax requires its own standalone WP page. To qualify, it must meet the NEVENT, which states that the events including hoaxes should have WP:PERSISTENCE / significant coverage and demonstrate lasting significance or impact, which is not the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of hoaxes.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The hoax pretty much spread like wildfire, and has PERSISTENTLY BEEN reported in many articles, including reputable ones like Dawn.

Here are some sources that falsely report this rumour:

Firstpost (which you argued for its reliability once) - https://www.firstpost.com/world/parents-are-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-but-why-12516002.html/amp

Associated News International - https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistani-parents-lock-daughters-graves-to-avoid-rape20230429124712

Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/web-stories/why-are-people-locking-up-womens-graves-in-pakistan/photostory/99838682.cms

News sources that report the case being debunked and false:

The Express Tribune - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2414436/indian-media-spreads-fake-padlocked-grave-image-to-discredit-pakistan?amp=1

Dawn- https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1750493

NDTV- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/story-on-pictures-of-padlock-in-pakistan-incorrect-grave-from-hyderabad-3990281/amp/1

WION- https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-are-parents-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-587324/amp

ALT News- https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-viral-photo-of-grave-with-iron-grille-is-from-hyderabad-not-pakistan/

India TV News- https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/the-truth-behind-graveyard-with-padlock-story-pakistan-hyderabad-video-photos-waris-pathan-latest-updates-2023-05-01-868273 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualVagabond, OK but you're still missing the point. As mentioned earlier, this coverage does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:WIDESPREAD states Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been picked up by reputable sources, so I’d say it pretty much is notable. Not to mention that this topic is brought up quite a bit, even warranting an article that was made about it only a few weeks ago:

https://www.boomlive.in/amp/fast-check/viral-picture-grave-locked-pakistan-parents-necrophilia-daughter-claim-online-25859 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, it's a fact check, largely repeating what everyone else has posted a year ago. It's barely half a page, with more photo than text. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRedirect to Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan (18:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)): per nom. This event fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NSUSTAINED. Random fact-check websites are not significant coverage of this event, and most of the sources here are either unreliable or questionable per CiteHighlighter. Do not merge to List of hoaxes because the scope of that list is notable entries (i.e., each entry links to a notable event). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of hoaxes and Fake news in India. Muneebll (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of hoaxes appears to require a blue link for each entry, so that wouldn't work. There's already a due summary of the hoax in Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find coverage from May and August a year ago, then nothing since. It has no persistence in media, so doesn't really meet notability as explained. Could be a brief mention in an article about news hoaxes or something, but not notable enough for its own article. [11] pretty well explains it, and that was over a year ago. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 14 August 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 13:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogeechee, Georgia

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPLACE. No sources. PROD tag removed without concerns being addressed. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not show in Google Maps. Might not even be officially recognized. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 01:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete It does in fact show on topos and is listed in GNIS, but as best I can determine, it's just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 16 August 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 11:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Tang

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

Fails WPANYBIO and GNG; among sources are blogs, not reliable media and podcasts. BoraVoro (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 4 are about her favorite restaurants and what clothes she wears, not really what's needed for notability. I don't find much else for RS coverage; [12] is about skin creams. I don't see coverage we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like blatant self promotion or WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 21 August 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goki Eda

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

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited research publications. This needs cleanup to remove or better source the promotional description of his research and make the rest look less like a resume, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I know the article is not perfect, but I am sure it deserves to be on wikipedia Bulklana (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this editor is currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing/COI. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Normally an Associate Professor is not considered as notable, but he clearly is an exception because of his very high citation record.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - those citing WP:PROF - which of the specific eight criteria do you believe covers this associate professor? David Eppstein mentions WP:PROF#C1 but that subheading/link doesn't exist. Genuine question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your browser must be broken. It works for me. Criterion 1. The one that applies to someone who has "heavily-cited research publications". As I said in my !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 August 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 11:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration Team China

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

I am also nominating these as they have the same issues as mentioned below.

Unnecessary WP:CFORK per WP:FANCRUFT. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 10 years ago.

Also fail WP:NTEAM and WP:SIGCOV as sources primarily consists of WP:PRIMARY and the tidbits of social media posts. Fails WP:GNG. The same issues applies to all the articles nominated as they have the same issues in common. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator's rationale. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All articles were created in April 2014 by the same user. As it turned out – FA1 lasted one year, coverage was sparse and they were never updated again. They've survived the passage of time with little to no encyclopaedic value; the only useful piece of info is which outfit ran each of the teams, which I've just added to the 2014 season article. MSport1005 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Mexico, and Venezuela. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with the nominator's assessment. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 22:05, 15 August 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 Strawberry Switchblade. ✗plicit 11:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bryson

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

Not sufficiently notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ARTIST for a separate article, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources outside of her involvement with her first band. Her recent work as an artist did get some secondary coverage in this Sunday Post article, but the rest that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search is either interviews or passing mentions in connection with the band. Created twice by single-purpose accounts, and redirected to the band article twice in 2014, it's essentially an autobiography [13], [14], full of unsourced claims and WP:OR. Rather than redirect it a third time, it seemed best to take it to an AFD discussion: see also at the talk page a discussion about this with the editor who last redirected it. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Scotland. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising your concerns about the notability of this article. However, I believe that the article meets the criteria for notability under WP:

Why I think this reason:

I have been speaking personally to Jill Bryson for help on the construction of this page. She has assisted a lot to the making of this, and has given me verifiable evidence about her date of birth.

If you do not believe this reason then you can see for yourself here:

https://www.facebook.com/jill.bryson.52

She is my friend, search my name on there at Tom Sullivan

Instead of deleting the article, it would be more constructive for us to improve it by helping to add reliable sources and removing any unsourced claims I chose. My approach is trying to align with Wikipedia’s goal of providing comprehensive and verifiable information. I do know that the article has been redirected in the past, but it’s important to recognize that notability can evolve over time. Her contributions to both music and art continue to be relevant, warranting a standalone article.

T/R\S T/R\S (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. It's possible that someone (herself and/or friend) thinks she merits a separate article because her former bandmate Rose McDowall has one, but McDowall received some notice for her solo works. This article on Bryson simply copies a personal biography of interest only to friends and associates (having agoraphobia and hanging out in the local punk scene do not make someone notable) and it appears to be an attempted resume for her current art career. Her activities outside of her former band do not have the coverage necessary for an individual article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. This is almost entirely unsourced claims, not based on WP:SIGCOV significant coverage published in reliable secondary sources. Elspea756 (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but would also support a redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:57, 17 August 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 11:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Roushan

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

This subject cannot pass WP:GNG. Many of the cited sources are actually Godi media sources which are no longer taken seriously especially when it comes to establishing WP:N. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Conservatism, Entertainment, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources indicate notability. Orientls (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is a clear lack of coverage from reliable sources. CharlesWain (talk) 03:56, 19 August 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 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Production Car Series

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

There is nothing new about sports series that have burst out in a blaze of publicity then vanished without trace like this one. Having checked WP:BEFORE, independent coverages are extremely thin bar the of press releases, using Tesla to make a buzz for publicity. Numerous of these sources are WP:PRIMARY. WP:SIGCOV is very lacking as sources do not assert notability.

Some what is written are uncited without a single source such as it 'was cancelled due to a lack of a lead investor', indicating that it died without ceremony like it happen to most failed start-up businesses. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources in article probably already indicate significant coverage, even if they didn't there are sufficient sources available to expand. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those from motorsport.com are WP:ROUTINE announcments, electricgt.news is a dead link. Most of the WP:RS are routine announcments. Teslarati looks like another dubious hobbyist site at best, the kind that plagues the internet. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – You know what, I'm inclined to agree. I don't think the Motorsport.compieces are necessarily routine, but the fact is that there are just announcements. If there had been drivers and teams signed up, then I would be 100% for keeping this, but there's clearly no enduring notability for what was essentially speculative. I don't even care about it now, it won't even register as trivia in a decade. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any coverage here suggesting this meets the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Coverage appears limited to routine announcements. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

WP:POVFORK of 2003 invasion of Iraq, where this content is already covered (and in a less POV way). Redirect to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Terrorism, Iraq, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is indeed a problem but I don't think redirect is a good idea, let alone a solution. This article was created back in 2003 as a very reasonable fork, in my view sensibly. The main article was, as is, far too long. For most of these 21 years there has been no adequate link from the main article to this one and so this spin-off has languished. Material from 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war should be moved here leaving behind only a brief summary. This would improve both articles. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above suggestion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't think it's a good idea to try to merge or redirect. 2003 invasion of Iraq was put up for Feature Candidacy in 2006, and as mentioned above, was deemed too lengthy and had to be trimmed. This is what was forked off into its own article. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as WP:CSD#G5 by Justlettersandnumbers. ✗plicit 06:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari Movement

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

User Charhat Singh unilaterally split the main Namdhari article into two separate articles: Namdhari Movement and Kuka Samparda without any consensus nor justification. I propose the Kuka Samparda article be deleted as well. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Kooka myself and the information seems fine, Namdhari Movement should be renamed as Kooka Movement/Lehar because that is the official or more apt name. Kooka Samparda is legitimate, just one statement needs editing as it seems to be misinformation/British propaganda. Many forget that Namdhari is the individual/group and the religion is Namdhari Sikhism or the Kooka Samparda. Mianpur (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur Seems suspicious that a new account is voting on this. Also, it is very likely these pages were created by a confirmed sock puppet (I’ve already presented evidence at the sock puppet investigation board). MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur The point raised by @MaplesyrupSushi is valid. I do not know which reference provides the words 'Namdhari Sikhism' when the word 'Sikhism' itself at present is being deemed by scholars as the colonial manifestation of the Sikh religion, which should be termed 'Sikhi', with no substitute word in English, at least for the time being. Similarly, 'Kooka Samprada' seems odd enough. The hard core differentiation of the Sikh sects is majorly a twentieth century phenomenon. Although distinctions exist, but all trace their origins to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Hence, in my humble opinion, unless we are scholarly providing references, we should not devise terms, suiting political agendas, but should stick to broad, unbiased academic discourse on the subject. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assertions made by @MaplesyrupSushi that these article pages were created by splitting Namdhari article page. Undoubtedly, the Namdhari page needs improvement and users are already active in it. However, creating two separate articles form it and copy-pasting most of the content is not at all desirable. Namdhari Movement definitely needs a major overhaul otherwise, and at present, I fully support its deletion, with endeavors to correct the information on similar pre-existing pages. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 14 August 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 List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. ✗plicit 11:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bayonet Lightning

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

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

One of many individual articles created 20 years ago in the wake of the Iraq War that would not meet WP:GNG today. Articles cover WP:ROUTINE and non-notable military operations, of which there were tens (if not hundreds) of thousands during the war. None of these are significant like Operation Red Dawn is. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, any coverage around these operations is in the context of the war and don't warrant a standalone page. Merge selectively into List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which provides better context, then redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. Limited sourcing and individual notability, no need for standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 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 04:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadabam's Hospitals

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing sourcing simply regurgitates announcements and PR and has no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and India. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 14 August 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!} 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment area (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. De-prodded (correctly) by @GB fan: with edit summary "remove PROD, was previously PRODed 20:13, 10 June 2014‎‎‎ and later removed, must go to WP:AFD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 16:25, 14 August 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 03:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any notability guideline met. Has a promotional tone too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Article standing on nothing and there is nothing to support its existence here. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:22, 14 August 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. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate

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

I'm taking a look at some of my earlier work these days, and while this article survived AfD once, I'm thinking now that it probably shouldn't have. Part of what made that AfD so difficult is that it did receive a lot of coverage when it was happening, and some small amount of commentary after the fact. That makes for a borderline WP:PERSISTENCE pass, and more broadly, you could make the case that the article passes WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as well. All of that, however, doesn't really matter, because while those requirements are necessary for notability, they aren't sufficient.

But one necessary requirement the article fails is WP:GEOSCOPE: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. This event is basically talked about because it doesn't matter. It has no impact on basically anyone outside of Wikipedia. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. Since that coverage is pretty much the sole basis for this article, I believe that the article fails WP:NEVENT. In addition, the article fails WP:EVENTCRIT#1 and #2 – that's not dispositive, but it is a clue along the same lines. ~~This should be redirected to List of Wikipedia controversies, where I already added content in anticipation of a merge.~~ theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm getting some déjà vu here... in any case, keep. As I previously said at an unsuccessful merge request, List of Wikipedia controversies is an inappropriate merge target as that page is about controversies regarding Wikipedia, not editing disputes on Wikipedia. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point; I've scrapped the text from that article, and I'm fine with it just being deleted – would be happy to restore the text/sources for anyone who wants to add it to a different list, if one is created after. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG clearly, with multiple reliable and independent sources presenting significant coverage about the subject. Skyshiftertalk 07:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that's not ... all right, nevermind, withdrawn. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:31, 14 August 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 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jogeshwari Misal

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

This is a contested draftification. The subject fails to meet the notability guideline for companies; the cited sources are not reliable, and I have not found any promising sources after a quick search. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, India, and Maharashtra. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TechnoSquirrel69 actually, I reviewed this article, as it is from the same region I belong to, I found information mentioned in article is valid. I saw notice above this article and want to contribute in this article if it is helpful. Krishna Nimbalkar (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Nimbalkar: Feel free to contribute to the article if it interests you, but I want to note that this is not an issue of the information's validity but of the subject's notability. We need multiple reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject in order to determine that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not meet WP:NORG. The references are either primary sources, or passing and extremely brief mentions on independent sources. In other words, it's just another restaurant chain. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability cannot be proven through significant coverage in independent, reliable websites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:17, 19 August 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. Unfortunately, recently we have deleted a lot of articles on footballers from North Korea due to a lack of reliable sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chang-kyo

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I saw his name on 7th Supreme People's Assembly but am not sure if this footballer is/was the same man as the member of parliament. Unless we can prove their relation, I'm leaning towards Delete. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: likely fails wp:GNG, but deemed notable by essay wp:FOOTYN. Represented North Korea in 4 FIFA matches in Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Japan. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY has been superseded by WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I’m saying weak keep. It was superseded by wp:SPORTCRIT, which does not mention football. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was looking for a redirect, but couldn't find any venue, he played 1990 world cup qualifying games, but that's all I can work out. Nothing else unfortunately. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 17 August 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 Timeline of the Syrian civil war (2020)#December. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(2020)#December, where this event is already included and covered better contextually. Unfortunately WP:ROUTINE military operation as part of the Syrian Civil War that is not WP:LASTING. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:11, 14 August 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. I don't see a consensus here after two relistings and a Soft Deletion is not an option so I'm closing this as a No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find articles that are about the software, but not the company: Writesonic at AI-scale-up, Writesonic Review. Both of those are quite long. Could this article be changed to be more about the software rather than the company? If so, I think it could be properly sourced. Lamona (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article can be changed around to be about the product/service and of course those sources should meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 19 August 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. I see No consensus here in this AFD and I don't expect one to emerge after a final relisting. Alternatively, editors interested in a Merge or Redirect can now make a proposal on the article talk page and see if you find support there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My previous relisting comment stands. I do not see a consensus to Merge or Redirect and I don't see those arguing to Keep as suggesting it as their choice, at best, Merge/Redirect is preferable to Deletion but I see very limited support for Deletion. Even the nominator is suggesting Merge over Deletion. Right now, there is No consensus but I'd still like to see a review of sources brought up in this discussion. Of course, closers work independently and another closer might see this situation differently but this is what I see from reviewing this discussion a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be WP:ALLPLOT, and I don't see anything fit for merge. The article is a relic of the before-FANDOM days when anything and everything was permitted. The merge arguments are clearly motivated by fan sentiment rather than policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Would you accept a redirect or a partial merge? The other delete !votes (SpacedFarmer and Svampesky) have commented that they would accept that, in order to find an WP:ATD that looks for WP:CONSENSUS with most of the keep !votes, who have also suggested a merge as acceptable. The amount of content to merge could then be resolved through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept a redirect if that means it won't come to a "no consensus" closure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see above sources were found. Your argument seems to the in the lane of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Additionally not to long ago additional time war content was released which may be noteable in its own right. See [15][16][17] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:39, 18 August 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!} 04:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Wife

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

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found quite a few interviews with music magazines but that's all primary sources. I've struggled to find anything independent of her interviews. Fails WP:SINGER and WP:BIO as it stands. Knitsey (talk) 19:49, 14 August 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 Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015 Qalamoun incident

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

Redirect to Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015), where it makes more sense and already covered in more context. This incident fails WP:LASTING on its own. One of thousands of routine military operations during the Syrian Civil War. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per ATD and CHEAP. I double checked that this is fairly covered at the target and that no merge is needed. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per nom, this fails WP:LASTING. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 05:06, 18 August 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!} 00:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialism (Chile)

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

Non-notable organisation; lack of reliable sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure to meet GNG. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no Reliable Sources at all Untamed1910 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have suggested merging with the Revolutionary Workers Party article if there was one Bedivere (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to have the Revolutionary Socialism (Chile) Party article removed? It's a real party that needs its own page for people to know what it is Jamesation (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If something needs a Wikipedia article "for people to know what it is" then evidently it doesn't fulfil the basic notability requirements. Axad12 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 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] "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[LOL-2] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[3] "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[4] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]