Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 05	October 07 >

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 redirect‎ to Rumble Fish (novel). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty-James

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources cited, tagged for notability since 2017 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rumble Fish (novel) - Not seeing any reason for this to be split out into a separate article, but its a useful search term, so should be redirected to the novel's article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. No sources cited, but there is a valid redirect target where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested ATD. There are no current references, but they could be found and addressed in the target article. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 11 October 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. Arguments to keep are all essentially using criteria from WP:SOLDIER, which is now deprecated. Malinaccier (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md Ziaul Hoque

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

The article's sources are routine or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV. A search has turned up no sources that would qualify as significant or secondary in order to meet WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without reading Bengali it's effectively impossible to find more sources as the subject has the same name as a former Pakistani president. However as a two star admiral I’d expect him to be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, there is no subject-specific notability guideline to that effect. His position does not necessarily guarantee coverage, and whose name he may share isn't a good reason to toss GNG to the wind. Garsh (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER used to say that two star admirals were presumed to be notable, but that guidance was deprecated in 2021. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being head of a national coast guard clearly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some will argue that because we have an article about the admiral who heads the US Coast Guard, we should have an article about the admiral who heads the Bangladesh Coast Guard. The latter may be as worthy an individual and as deserving of notice as the former, but the reason we have notability guidelines is so that we can write a whole, fair, and balanced article. For whatever reason, Ziaul Hoque has not been written about in any depth in reliable, independent sources (even in Bengali). It is not acceptable for an article to be based entirely on government press releases (which are one-sided), and self-published sources that have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Those are the only sources available about Ziaul Hoque, so we should not have a stand alone article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Worldbruce. A biography based on primary and non-independent sources is not NPOV, so until sources are found that make neutrality possible the article should not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have no knowledge of this subject, but I suspect an admiral possesses a smidgen of notability. Maybe one of the Wikipedia editors from Bangladesh can pitch in to help? Doha Dear (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. You'd presume given his position there would be plenty of RS about him but apparently not. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:46, 14 October 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 Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk TV

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

The subject of this article may well be notable but it is largely incomprehensible owing to very poor English. I understand AfD is not for cleanup but I think we’re in TNT territory with this article. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The contents of the article is not intelligible.Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, AfD is not cleanup… except for when it is. Suffice it so say, any article that repeatedly refers to "our" and "we" does not bode well even when they are coherent. (Is that history section about a satellite TV channel or a website?) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to remind participants that we are not here to discuss the quality of the contents of the article, but the notability of its topic. The ever-popular WP:TNT essay is not a policy-supported reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Syria, and Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a news story by the BBC, from 2014, about the media outlets of the region, but there is no mention of this particular TV station, unless it had a different name before. Hopefully someone familiar with the region can clarify. If we can't find any coverage, I would recommend a redirect to the article of the party that owns the station: the PUK. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoyfulTentmaker, please provide a link to the suggested target article if this article is Redirected. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are two redirect candidates, in order of preference:
- Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (recommended, as the TV station appears to be a subsidiary of this party)
- Television in Iraq
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. Little to no independent coverage. The creator of the article is an SPA, who has only shown interest in editing this article, which raises the question of WP:PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 17:56, 9 October 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. A fuller, more thorough deletion nomination statement based in policy and demonstrating BEFORE might have changed this closure slightly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Dachuan

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

Not notable. — Moriwen (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and China. — Moriwen (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Liu, Meina 刘美娜 (2014-02-08). "焦点人物 Hey，他是金大川！" [Focus Character Hey, he is Jin Dachuan!]. Beijing Times (in Chinese). p. E1014-1.
  The article notes: "2014秋冬男装周上，金大川从米兰转战巴黎，一口气走完16场秀且场场大牌，Prada、LouisVuitton、Hermes、BottegaVeneta、JilSander……你能想到的大秀他都去了，美国著名老牌时装杂志《Women'sWearDaily》(《女性时装日报》）在秀后将他的照片搬上封面，而由国际媒体评选的2014秋冬米兰男装周“MostBellissimoBoysinMilan”，他也名列于此。红，似乎已经势不可挡。190cm的身高、清秀脸庞、细脸窄眼，这个两年前还跟大家一起在教室里参加全国高考的山东小伙如今已经成为全球最炙手可热的Supermodel。"
  From Google Translate: "At the 2014 Fall/Winter Men's Fashion Week, Jin Dachuan moved from Milan to Paris and walked in 16 shows in one go, all of which were big brands, including Prada, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Bottega Veneta, Jil Sander... He went to all the big shows you can think of. The famous American fashion magazine Women's Wear Daily put his photo on the cover after the show, and he was also listed in the "Most Bellissimo Boys in Milan" of the 2014 Fall/Winter Milan Men's Fashion Week selected by international media. Popularity seems to be unstoppable. With a height of 190cm, a delicate face, and narrow eyes, this Shandong boy who took the national college entrance examination in the classroom with everyone two years ago has now become the most popular supermodel in the world."
2. "奢侈品牌之宠金大川胜张亮" [Jin Dachuan is more favored by luxury brands than Zhang Liang]. Want Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2014-02-17. p. A15.
  The article notes: "大陆人只要耳闻巴黎男装周，就会马上联想到《爸爸去哪儿》走红的模特儿张亮。事实上，同是中国面孔的男模金大川才是真正奢侈品牌的宠爱。据中奢网报导，金大川去年曾在2014春夏米兰男装周PRADA秀场一鸣惊人，这次的巴黎男装周上更是出尽锋头。"
  From Google Translate: "When mainland Chinese hear about Paris Men's Fashion Week, they will immediately think of Zhang Liang, the model who became famous in "Where Are We Going, Dad?". In fact, Jin Dachuan, a male model with a Chinese face, is the real favorite of luxury brands. According to China Luxury Network, Jin Dachuan made a splash at the PRADA show at the 2014 Spring/Summer Milan Men's Fashion Week last year, and he was even more popular at this Paris Men's Fashion Week."
3. Wang, Yiming 王一鸣 (2016-11-18). "新型男代表中国超模金大川" [New male representative: Chinese supermodel Jin Dachuan]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-03. Retrieved 2024-10-03.
  The article notes: "中国山东小伙金大川，是全球唯一受邀参加该摄影展的国际超模，自2013年以20岁之龄首次亮相米兰男装周后，数次在米兰、巴黎时装周上创下中国男模乃至亚洲男模的第一，成为国际时尚领域炙手可热的中国面孔，更成为GUCCI首位中国男模。"
  From Google Translate: "中国山东小伙金大川，是全球唯一受邀参加该摄影展的国际超模，自2013年以20岁之龄首次亮相米兰男装周后，数次在米兰、巴黎时装周上创下中国男模乃至亚洲男模的第一，成为国际时尚领域炙手可热的中国面孔，更成为GUCCI首位中国男模。"
  From Google Translate: "Jin Dachuan, a young man from Shandong, China, is the only international supermodel in the world invited to participate in the photography exhibition. Since his first appearance at the Milan Men's Fashion Week in 2013 at the age of 20, he has set the first place for Chinese male models and even Asian male models at the Milan and Paris Fashion Weeks several times, becoming a hot Chinese face in the international fashion field and the first Chinese male model of GUCCI."
4. "超模情侣金大川、项偞婧成微博热搜词 "一个93的，一个95的，恋爱正当时"" [Supermodel couple Jin Dachuan and Xiang Yanjing became a hot search term on Weibo: "One was born in 1993, the other was born in 1995, it's the right time for love"]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). 2015-03-18. p. B9.
  The article notes: "出生年份：1993年金大川自从2013年走上米兰男装周Prada秀场成为Prada“独家模特”后，事业顺风顺水，乾净的面孔更为他招来了大量粉丝，在国内也火得一塌糊涂。2014年再战米兰更不负众望，首次亮相就以pitti uom o2场、米兰8场、巴黎6场演出的耀眼成绩，成为新生代男模中亚洲面孔的新焦点。今年伦敦2015秋冬男装周，金大川为Coach，Maharishi，Margaret Howell，RichardJames，KTZ，BurberryProrsum品牌走秀，俨然是一枚炙手可热的国际超模了。"
  From Google Translate: "Year of Birth: 1993 Since Jin Dachuan became Prada's "exclusive model" at the Milan Men's Fashion Week in 2013, his career has been smooth sailing. His clean face has attracted a large number of fans and he has become very popular in China. In 2014, he returned to Milan and lived up to expectations. With his first appearance, he performed 2 shows in Pitti Uom O, 8 shows in Milan, and 6 shows in Paris, becoming the new focus of Asian faces among the new generation of male models. This year, at the London 2015 Autumn and Winter Men's Fashion Week, Jin Dachuan walked the runway for Coach, Maharishi, Margaret Howell, Richard James, KTZ, and Burberry Prorsum brands, and he is a hot international supermodel."
5. Wang, Yiming 王一鸣 (2014-07-04). "华人模特金大川　春夏男装周上大放异彩" [Chinese model Jin Dachuan shines at Spring/Summer Men's Fashion Week]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). p. 3 时尚.
  The article notes: "在刚刚结束的2015春夏男装周上，金大川是出场次数最多的华人男模特，包括伦敦、米兰、巴黎等城市，他一共走了14场秀，远超赵磊、蔚方卿、李振和吕丕强等其他中国男模。而他所走的牌子也多是一线品牌，包括签约他独家走伦敦秀场的Burberry，以及米兰秀场的Gucci、Bottega Veneta，还有巴黎秀场的爱马仕等。"
  From Google Translate: "In the just concluded 2015 Spring/Summer Men's Fashion Week, Jin Dachuan was the Chinese male model with the most appearances, including in London, Milan, Paris and other cities. He walked in a total of 14 shows, far exceeding other Chinese male models such as Zhao Lei, Wei Fangqing, Li Zhen and Lu Piqiang. And the brands he walked for were mostly first-tier brands, including Burberry, which signed him to walk exclusively in the London show, Gucci and Bottega Veneta in the Milan show, and Hermes in the Paris show."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jin Dachuan (Chinese: 金大川) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard.
1.47.149.75 (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)— 1.47.149.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Gheus (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anamah Tan

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

This article is without any byline, and is marked as "hub", other than that there is not much about her in media of Singapore. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has lots of coverage here, including this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There's also this and she's been inducted into the Singapore Women's Hall of Fame. Very clearly passes GNG. I suggest that the nom withdraw this AFD. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in agreement with the points expressed above regarding the keeping of the article. Montgomery28 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, such references are usually not indexed and need access to local archives. I appreciate your help here and withdraw this nom. Gheus (talk) 00:56, 9 October 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 Stevenson-class destroyer. Star Mississippi 00:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USS Stockton (DD-504)

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

USS Stevenson (DD-503) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
USS Thorn (DD-505) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
USS Turner (DD-506) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This ship, and three other articles I am also nominating, were all members of the cancelled Stevenson-class destroyers. That isn't inherently a problem for notability, but de facto these four articles are almost exactly the same and do not say anything of substance beyond the content in the Stevenson-class destroyer article. In fact, most of the paragraphs have been copy-pasted between all five articles. Therefore, all four ship articles should be redirected to the article on the entire class. In the unlikely event sources are found that show one or more ship could sustain its own article, at that time the relevant article(s) could be restored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, all four of these articles are almost totally identical. There may be tiny bits of information in them which are omitted in the main Stevenson-class destroyer article, which seems to have slightly different content. Personally I believe a merge of all four articles with Stevenson-class destroyer would be the most appropriate course of action. Archimedes157 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Stevenson-class destroyer. When there is little to say about a series of ships, it is common practice to cover those with minimal coverage at the class article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stevenson-class destroyer: Given the extreme overlap these article's existence makes no sense. TarnishedPath^talk 12:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Stevenson-class destroyer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ong & Ong

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

Fails WP:NCORP: lacks direct, non-routine, and in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, the creator of this article was blocked for COI. Gheus (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some mentions of the firm [1], [2], neither of which is very extensive. Source 7 is the only one rated by Source Highlighter, yellow, so an iffy source. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snik

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

Typical pretensions of grandeur, founded on weak or non-existent material. The sources used and found are plain listings, such as this, advertorials such as this, titled “Get to know Snik, etc” with full support by the record distributor, a report about another artist, e.g. this, or some half-serious aside of a text in reference to sexism in music, e.g. this. The lack of mainstream sources is not an issue, as the artist’s field of music is mostly ignored there, but there is little of anything anywhere. YouTube "success" on its own does not hold water and the fact that the article was curated mostly by kamikaze accounts, such as this one, does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can add little to what the nominator has already described. Also note that the article's claim of making the top ten in five different countries applies only to Spotify stats. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing Doomsdayer520; delete per nom. JSFarman (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. I note that punk-type, DIY, self-published musical acts are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Khan Lodi

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

Cannot find any reliable sources for this individual. Out of the four sources cited in the article:

×1 (atelim.com) appears to no longer exist.
×2 (muktokotha.com) appear to be from a minor news site (i.e not RS) which my Chrome browser is giving warnings against entering.
×1 (The Riyazu-s-salatin) appears to be about a different individual named Lodi Khan, who p.156 describes as being murdered during the reign of Akbar (d.1605) rather than living past 1612 as stated by the article.

A search of Google Books for this individual does not bring up any matches. Alivardi (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, and India. Alivardi (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given it's not even certain this person existed, it's certain the subject does not meet GNG. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. 4 sources on the page, source 1 and 2 are deadlinks and 3,4 are same personal blog of a user with Hotmail account. No reliable secondary independent sources and no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to prove GNG. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:13, 11 October 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. Issues raised can be addressed via clean up. Star Mississippi 18:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Murray (art_historian)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joan Murray (art historian)

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

The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.

The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).

The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.

It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.

Based on this, I propose deletion of the article. Andrew6111 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Canada, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have to dig a bit, but she seems to be the go-to for Thom Thompson biographies/knowlege. [3], [4], [5]. This is one of her papers [6] and a few book reviews for works she's published [7], [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a book review for "A Treasury of Tom Thompson" [9], if it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, has multiple books which have reviews on both Google Scholar and Newspaper.com Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)

Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Asilvering.--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entry about notable subject ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see stripping out citations that violate Wikipedia's standards of sourcing as an improvement? There are articles that are plainly trivial mentions, there are subject-authored sources, there are sources that fail verification, there are sources that are editorially biased. Those are unacceptable. Andrew6111 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question that the page meets GNG and that the subject is very notable in the art world. A key page within Wikipedia's Canadian art collection and its subset Tom Thompson collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t get past that this is an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 09:46, 11 October 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. Star Mississippi 18:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Medical College

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

Non-notable diploma mill and is not recognized ([10], [11], [12]). Gheus (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator. Doha Dear (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unaccredited institution, so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 doesn't apply. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:36, 13 October 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. Star Mississippi 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Rae Ibay

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

Local politician with no inherent notability. Only one reliable source cited; others are IMDB, a self-described blog, and something that cites wikipedia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles of members of city councils of major cities are kept.Djflem (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of keeps Ibay's membership in the Manila City Council has been mostly nondescript until recently. Elections are in May 2025, and this early, politicians are jockeying for positions. Ibay is a councilor representing the youth as the city president of the Manila Sangguniang Kabataan (youth council); normally, such councilors are the council's committee chairperson on youth and sports. However, she was unseated recently and this has caused controversy if that was even allowed. So her notability is on this WP:1E, but this is not the last time we'd see her as a politician. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reason as HTD's. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus to keep. More input on notability is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per the previous two editors' input. Doha Dear (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per reasons above. SBKSPP (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - young footballer who fails WP:GNG. Creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles. Giant Snowman 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The player may become notable in the medium term, but with the precedent of indiscriminate creation by a single contributor, deleting seems fair to me.. Svartner (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Uncertain if he will ever play at a higher level, but still on the books at Blackburn, my suggestion is to draft the article as one for the future. Govvy (talk) 21:52, 12 October 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. Star Mississippi 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batangas–Quezon Road

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

This road does not meet WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG. Listed sources are primary (1-5) or passing mentions (6). A search has not revealed any sources that would qualify as secondary and WP:SIGCOV. Possibly could be made a redirect to Batangas City. Garsh (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garsh2: I found this source which may contribute to notability. Left guide (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is referring to the Toll Road 4 project between Batangas and Quezon, not the Batangas-Quezon Road. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination, both with regards to coverage and notability. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:09, 6 October 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. Star Mississippi 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Medical and Dental College

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

Apparently it is a diploma mill and is not recognized by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council [13]. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator nailed it. Doha Dear (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Israel–Hezbollah war

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

WP:OR; WP:CFORK of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) and 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Lebanon. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD A10. I have tagged the article accordingly, which any administrator can feel free to decline if they'd like this AfD to play out. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) includes this event. It can be merged there or be redirected. Web-julio (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A10. Until the requested move at Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) concludes we should not create any separate "Israel-Hezbollah war" article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Created in violation of the existing article with an ongoing move request. Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Viewsridge (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish place names

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

Tagged unsourced for over a decade. Some articles already have a lot of cited info about their names for example Samsun so maybe we don’t need this list? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obscure focus. Unsourced. Aintabli (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the decision is to keep this list it needs to be given a title that is not a lie. It is not a "List of Turkish place names"; it is a seriously incomplete list of places in Turkey with names that have Greek origins. Many places in Turkey do not fit this criterion, including some large cities, such as Diyarbakır, not to mention a great many smaller places. Athel cb (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakov Mrvica

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag has been up for several years, most of the references are not in English. Does not meet WP:BIO Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Serbia and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Died in combat around 20 years ago now, doesn't seem to have notability beyond any of other hundreds of deceased in wars since then. This was deleted in 2021, and recreated again. The sourcing now doesn't add much beyond what was there in 2021. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 8 October 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. Star Mississippi 18:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Linux Link Tech Show

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

The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:WEBCRIT and was WP:PRODed in 2012. The current sources are largely blogs, forums, interviews, or primary and I'm not finding much of anything else in a WP:BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Technology, Computing, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited secondary sources, in addition to reliability concerns, do not contain significant enough coverage to make this topic notable. Web search does not turn up other usable sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There are three non=primary sources in the references: the TechNewsWorld source is a trivial mention, and NetworkWorld (though reprinted in a book and ItsFoss are listicles with minimal coverage of the subject. I could not find anything online that shows significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, though with a podcast that's been going since 2003, it's possible there has been coverage that is no longer around/indexed by search engines. However, notability must be established rather than assumed, and the notability for this article's subject has not been. - Aoidh (talk) 15:23, 9 October 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. While this looks like a N/C, we have slim coverage outside of the allegations and a level of allegations that doesn't reach criminal notability. While not BLP1E, this is a BLP where we should always err on tthe side of caution, which is to delete. Should Foppoli return to the public stage this could be reevaluated. Star Mississippi 14:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Foppoli

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

I am nominating per a request that I received by email by the subject of the article. We have here a local politician, mayor of a small town. He has received extensive coverage due to sexual assault allegations, and resigned under pressure. The coverage is basically a meet of the local politician wing of WP:NPOL, but there are surely some shades of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLP1E. I would be a weak keep in the absence of a request from the subject. We typically give a certain (small) amount of deference to the subjects of articles that request deletion, and this brings me to a weak delete. I do not think that an article on a short-time mayor of a small town is an essential article for Wikipedia, even in the presence of the allegations; while its presence is likely to take up a fair bit of editor time, without a corresponding payoff. (If kept, then I note that the "Accusations" section of the article could use a fair bit of streamlining per WP:PROSELINE.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't really see criminal notability; the mayor of a smaller town (under 25000) isn't an automatic pass. Most sources given seem rather salacious, attempting to paint a picture. "Mayor did or didn't get XYZ with the ladies", to be blunt, isn't terribly notable. Sounds like most of it is still unproven; he's not been found guilty. I'm not sure he would be notable even if he was guilty. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Passes WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources are abundant and subject passes notability guidelines. Sourcing is abundant before and during/after allegations.

And the article can be expanded with new sourcing from The New York Times, ABC 7 News, KRON 4, NBC Bay Area, CBS News, People magazine, Fox News, Northern California Public Media, Newsweek, The Drinks Business, KCBS, North Bay Bohemian, ABC 25 WPBF, Newsweek...and many other sources that cover his time before the accusations.

I mean geeze, if that's not reliable secondary sources regarding notability I'm not sure what is. Improve, don't delete. Missvain (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Of course the subject of the article wants it deleted. It documents five allegations of sexual assault against him. He easily passes GNG per the sources Missvain linked above. The Newsweek article by a senior news editor is on its own a strong argument for keep.JSFarman (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject's reasons to want it deleted are transparent, I do not think a desire to hold him accountable should factor into our deletion decision. There is certainly otherwise a respectable keep argument, even discounting the post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis, and I would assess a pre-AI article by a journalist who was a senior editor at Newsweek, the politics editor at NBC News, and now deputy managing editor at CNBC International as reliable. That said, I agree that the Accusations section of the article should be trimmed. JSFarman (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (I was alerted to this by Russ Woodroofe because I was involved in prior discussion of this article at WP:BLPN and did some work on it at the end of last year.) As Missvain says, there's significant coverage of the allegations against Foppoli, including in the national press (NYT, CBS). There was also at least local coverage before the allegations against him were made public (e.g. [14], [15]) so it's not a WP:BLP1E situation. And while it is true that we give some consideration for BLP subjects' requests for deletion, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE strictly applies only to non-public figures; it is hard to consider someone who has both held political office and appeared on reality TV shows a non-public figure.
In the end he's a former local politician who was never that important (mayor of a town of 25,000 is not a major public office!) so I struggle to feel very strongly that it's important to keep the article. On the other hand there's no really compelling reason to delete other than "person who spent fifteen years self-promoting has decided that they no longer want to be in the public eye now they have been accused of sexual assault by twelve different women" which I also struggle to feel a great deal of sympathy for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article looks like a WP:ATTACK PAGE to me. Broad and expansive coverage of a controversy relative to an otherwise not exactly notable person. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While some local news, it's am not sure if it is enough to mean a pass of NPOL, and all the rest is for alleged sex crimes, which are in a weird ground to use as a claim to notability if he hasn't been convicted for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:38, 8 October 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 14:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom International School

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

No single reliable source to proof school notability. Gabriel (……?) 14:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 14:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks independent source to meet WP:GNG seems like a WP:PROMO as the school website was cited.

Tesleemah (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A website school being cited as an external link doesn't make an article a WP:PROMO. You need to be careful on how you place your reasons on AFD. I agree with the lack of sources. Cheers. Gabriel (……?) 10:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apart from the website, there is no other source that this school exists, and also no source that it is notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL. There's zero coverage about this school in the news or any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of schools in Port Harcourt. Star Mississippi 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starlets Academy

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

Can one source justify a school notability. Aside this one source I can’t find anything notable about this school. Gabriel (……?) 14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Schools. Gabriel (……?) 14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Port_Harcourt#Education - The single news report indicates the correct name is Starlet Academy (no s). Searches find almost nothing under either name, but what I found confirms the source is wrong. Starlets is correct. Some false hits about some Starlets Academy awards (to do with film making) and this place [16]. Also a UK registered company are not this academy. Neither is a hit from Kenya. The single source is a local newspaper publishing through Wordpress, almost entirely quoting a speech. Reliability unclear, and primary and not independent. They have a (primary source) facebook page [17], and a website [18] but it won't open. Here is a version from the Way Back Machine: [19] which confirms some information, such as the founder and that it was founded in 1997. All primary/not independent, of course. The school did win an award for value, described here [20]. Although I have not investigated the independence of the awards, on the face of it that is genuine. But this is a private school. It needs to meet WP:NORG and we do not have the required WP:ORGDEPTH sources to write an article. It is usual, for non notable schools, to redirect them to the school district. The Port Harcourt page has a section on education, but there is some work needed there, unfortunately. Secondary schools are being redirected to a list of schools in Port Harcourt, but the inclusion criterion of that list suggests a school must have a page to be included (although there is an entry without a page). The inclusion criterion is wrong. All schools in Port Harcourt should be included without a requirement to create a stub that adds no value to the reader. But, in any case, the redirect target is the best place to include information about the schools in the area. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Port Harcourt: A single source is not enough to establish notability, hence redirect to the list of schools in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:17, 7 October 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) 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahul Rayyan

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

The claim to notability, playing 12 games in Singapore, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 8 October 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 14:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Watanabe

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

Unequivocal failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 180 minutes in Japan's second league, otherwise in amateur leagues. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ja.wiki article has additional references which have not been acknowledged, but should be per WP:NEXIST. Left guide (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there to take into consideration. Of the footnotes in the article, 2 were posted by Verspah Oita, 2 by Blaublitz Akita and the rest by Albirex Niigata. All are his employers, i.e. WP:PRIMARY and not even worth noting in a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Zirong

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

The claim to notability, playing 5 football matches in Hong Kong and some in the current third league of China, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Recall Party

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

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Organizations, India, and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 6 October 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. Star Mississippi 14:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbrella

AfDs for this article:

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

While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Webcomics, Organizations, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Webcomic#Webcomics collectives seems like the best bet? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides a listing in the colofon of Webcomics (2005), I got nothing. The sources in the article aren't particularly reliable either, so there's nothing for us to say on Dumbrella I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot find prose sources on Dumbrella, describing it in the main Webcomic article seems unappropriate to me. I stick with deletion. If we had a List of webcomic collectives article, I suppose a redirect could've worked. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:01, 9 October 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 13:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Petrushevski

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

Pretty straightforward. The subject lacks notability. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any coverage for this individual. An article about the funeral isn't helping notability, the others are more general, not really about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 7 October 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 13:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria B. Mars

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

Being rich by inheritance and formerly being a chairperson of Mars, Inc. does not make her notable. Significant sources are lacking for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is a real challenge on this one as the family admits they have kept a low profile. I added those citations to the article, but I struggle to find more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comment above. There does not appear to be enough RS citations to justify an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:57, 9 October 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 Bangladesh–India border. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True - The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
Participants are allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. If you wish to change your !vote, please strike out the old one. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, this is not a constructive comment, and is unlikely to serve your argument. Please remain civil. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bangladesh–India border. Though I would prefer deletion but merging is not bad either. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:10, 7 October 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 11:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Dabi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a civil servant, not meeting notability requirements. Sourcing is there, but I'm not sure her gov't position makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough sources and coverage on web for the article to qualify WP:GNG (I did a quick search). As User:Oaktree b highlighted in their comment, government position has no affect on the outcome of AFD - I agree. But this article has met WP:RS criteria according to me. Macrobreed2 (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being an IAS officer is not a reason for special recognition. It's simply a government job. It's time we, as Indians, stop viewing such roles as positions of fame or distinction. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Known for a bunch of controversies but is still far from meeting WP:N. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:13, 11 October 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. Star Mississippi 14:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib Piriyev

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

Article about a non-notable businessperson and CEO. Previously declined in WP:AFC but moved to mainspace anyway. Sources are just WP:PASSINGMENTIONS and does not cover the subject WP:INDEPTH. Some the sources are regular WP:ROTM. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Azerbaijan. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nasib Piriyev is a notable entrepreneur and business leader whose contributions have been recognized by multiple independent sources. He has significant projects in the fields of Energy, Lifestyle, Capital financing, Culture and Philanthropy, which have been covered by major national and international outlets, including Azertac,HELLO! Magazine, and The New York Times.

His ventures, including AzMeCo, Buta Arts Centre, and Woodford Finance, have had measurable impact on countries including Azerbaijan, United Kingdom and Malta, as reflected in multiple sources. Nasib has also linked to recognitions including the film awards emerged by SONUNCU (The Last One), the work he co-directed. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not one of those sources contains significant coverage of Piriyev.

ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ColinFine, in significant coverage I read that, the Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. From here, some sources meet this statement.

I have also reorganized the sources within the article according to Help:Find sources. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if the sources brought into this discussion were evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NYtimes article only discusses focus on his company trying to acquire West Ham. this only mentions Nasib in passing. Same as publication from Hello! (magazine), none of them level up to WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. There are additional sources that demonstrate the subject's notability and verifiability [21], [22], [23]. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 09:32, 8 October 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Mist Dairy

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

This dairy organization does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Also, does not have sufficient coverage WP:SIGCOV in the reliable sources WP:RSP. Current page is WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. Charlie (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article reads like an advertisement. Maybe you should have tried G11 first. The sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The article includes the company’s products in a way that is entirely promotional. GrabUp - Talk 06:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp I am a bit cautious with CSD nowadays, as I have made mistakes in the past and my NPP training is not yet over. It's better to put this page through AfD. Let's hope this page gets updated and qualifies for WP:HEYMAN. Charlie (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources. Clearly promotional page. Fails WP:N, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ORG major company with revenue of 120 million dollars per annum.122.172.87.137 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revenue is not a criterion for notability. Per WP:ORG, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) are irrelevant for notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think revenue establishes notability for a corporation! It just seems like the article is based off promotion rather than information. 79lives (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep improving. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. As for the problems with WP:PROMO, it looks like a couple of editors have removed some of the puffery; more could be done but this can be done over the normal course of editing. Of the coverage already cited in the article, the best source is probably the Fortune India article titled "The Dairy Disruptors" which looks at Milky Mist's business alongside its competitors in the private dairy market, and examines the challenges they face in competing with the milk cooperatives. Turning to ProQuest, this 2024 Businessline article, "Inside Milky Mist's paneer revolution", takes an in-depth look at the company's business and quotes an independent analyst who points out the heavy debt that company is carrying, as well as risks including pricing pressures and variable raw material costs. Skipping over all the in-depth feature articles on Milky Mist that are gaga about the company, like "Milky Mist's winning formula to transform consumer behaviour" in The Economic Times, we can still find other independent reports about Milky Mist's activities, such as this 2018 article about the cooperative Amul, which was being audited after allegations of financial impropriety, including deals it cut with Milky Mist. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed most of the overtly promotional content, though there's still room for improvement. The sources highlighted by Cielquiparle provide sufficient coverage for me to lean towards keep for now. Yuvaank (talk) 21:22, 10 October 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!} 02:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ravish

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are stitched together using event listing, profiles,WP:SPS sources, clickbait sites, social media refs and interviews. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Assam, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks notability per WP:MUSICBIO, with insufficient independent coverage and reliance on self-published sources, failing WP:SIGCOV. The reference MenXp itself is not notable news media. The same goes for EatMyNews and Hindustan Metro, which are not notable sources. Some references are about the tour and music album. Saurabh ^Talk? 05:11, 7 October 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. ✗plicit 13:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hallman

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The sources and material are essentially all resume/CV type factoids. Previously deleted as an AFD result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Hallman. The closest possibilities for SNG are some local specialized awards which have been put into the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, Sports, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unsure why the article was revived after being deleted? Sole editor discloses that they are paid for their contributions to the article by the founded companies. The companies themselves do not have any notable pages. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: There's non trivial coverage the Hall of Fame entry [24], [25] but the article needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Firmansyah (Indonesian businessman)

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

Puff piece article to promote his business. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 6 October 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, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turushka dynasty

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

This is a WP:HOAX. I have expertise in the subcontinental history of the first millennium and have never heard of such a "dynasty"; additionally, neither Reference 1, which is a Russian translation of Bosworth's Handbook, evidences any such dynasty nor does Reference 2. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was in the middle of disambiguation of links when Turushka came up. This led me here.

Reading both sets of sources used thru the archive library https://archive.org/embed/islamicdynasties0000bosw_g4s2 page 196 is actually where you want to go. This source actually says different than the article.

The other source listed, Brockhaus And Efron Jewish Encyclopedia, doesn't say anything about a Turkish royal dynasty, it's also in Russian which makes for a slow read. https://archive.org/embed/BrockhausAndEfronJewishEncyclopedia

Looking at the edit history and page creation in other languages. It's obvious this was ethnic revisionist article that accidentally got approved most likely because the original source was in Russian and can't be easily translated by computer screen so most likely the approval was WP:FAITH.

After this article is approved for deletion, considering that the editor who made this article has already spread it to two other wiki language projects, I recommend that we ask one of our sysops to contact the other wiki projects to handle speedy deletion.

If someone hasn't already done it, please add a Speedy deletion template.

RCSCott91 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a reference to the Turushka can be found on p. 197 of Bosworth's handbook, but defines them as "Muslim Turkish mercenaries"—nowhere near a dynasty. What Bosworth says elsewhere on the provided pages disproves everything else the article claims. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not an actual dynasty... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:AirshipJungleman29 79lives (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per @TrangaBellam and @RCSCott91. This article was soley approved on the reviewers good faith but unfortunately it was abused here. As stated above, there is no historical record of this supposed “dynasty”. Leading to the undeniable conclusion that It never existed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Al-Barashdy

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

Had a brief professional career but the article only presents database sources, which don't comply with WP:SPORTBASIC. I found an article about him in Kooora, but it does nothing more than just regurgitate a quote from him. Stad Doha is just routine match coverage and Al-Sharq is a passing mention followed by a squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 8 October 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. Please prune this list according to guidance coming from this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of travel podcasts

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE unrelated entries majority of them being non notable. I would argue neither do any of the other "List of X podcasts" but I disagree with mass nominations. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite their inclusion in reliable sources, I don't think all of the listed podcasts can be objectively considered "travel podcasts" rather than podcasts about history and culture. For example, The Bitter Southerner is not about travel. It turns out that this particular podcast does involve travel. Also, it might be fine to have "travel podcasts" that are not "podcasts about traveling". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: every entry in the list has a source that calls it a "travel podcast". Can you explain what you mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE or indicate which of the four examples it falls under (NOTPLOT, NOTLYRICS, NOTSTATS, or NOTCHANGELOG)? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It best fits NSTATS but not really. It's more the fact that Travel podcast isn't an article therefore list of not notable thing isn't notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your deletion rationale that the list is not notable then? This list could pass WP:NLIST independently of whether Travel podcast passes WP:N. It's also worth noting that WP:LISTCRIT states that While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists. So not all entries in the list have to be notable and notability does not have to be the criteria for inclusion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The library in Spotify/Overcast/Apple is pretty massive. If they're not notable they shouldn't be listed. But even some of the bluelinks are radio shows or authors, so I don't think this is really feasible. All of these lists of podcasts are problematic, simply listing a fraction of those available to listen to with no clear inclusion criteria. Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST because travel podcasts have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is demonstrated by the existing references. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "travel podcasts" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Bhavani, Divya Kala (May 6, 2020). "Take a trip with these travel podcasts during the lockdown period". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on May 9, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
2. Strick, Katie; Fishwick, Samuel (April 29, 2020). "Virtually escape with the help of these travel podcasts". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on May 14, 2020. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
3. Hoek, Sarah (February 18, 2022). "PODCAST REVIEW: Travel podcasts to reignite the travel bug: Our weekly selection". Daily Maverick. Archived from the original on March 23, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
4. Sachs, Andrea (December 11, 2020). "With travel podcasts, explore the world through your ear buds". Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
5. Jackman, Robert (May 11, 2021). "Travel podcasts to fuel your wanderlust". The Spectator. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
6. Michelson, Megan (March 15, 2018). "The 8 Best Adventure-Travel Podcasts". Outside Magazine. Archived from the original on August 17, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
7. Budhraja, Anvita (December 3, 2018). "A Journey To The Land Of Indian Travel Podcasts". Verve Magazine. Archived from the original on June 29, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
8. "The 22 best travel podcasts to listen to now". Wanderlust Magazine. April 6, 2022. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
9. Carrick, Evie (September 24, 2020). "14 Best Travel Podcasts to Listen to Right Now". Travel + Leisure. Archived from the original on May 16, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
10. Ward, Terry. "7 Travel Podcasts That'll Inspire Vacation Ideas". AARP. Archived from the original on May 17, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
11. Mills, Amy (May 4, 2020). "Top five travel podcasts to listen to in self-isolation". Who Magazine. Archived from the original on March 16, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
12. Moodley, Clinton. "5 travel podcasts to listen to while under lockdown". Independent Online. Archived from the original on May 9, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
13. Caldwell, Chloe (March 14, 2022). "The 15 Best Travel Podcasts To Fuel Your Wanderlust". Uproxx. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
14. Orr, Alice Florence (August 11, 2021). "9 Travel Podcasts You Should Be Listening To". Podcast Review. Los Angeles Review of Books. Archived from the original on June 29, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
15. Wills, Dixe (April 1, 2020). "10 of the best travel podcasts". The Guardian. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I listed here are copied from the article's references. The list's inclusion criteria is clear: A travel podcast should be included in this list only when it has been called a "travel podcast" by an independent reliable source.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles should not be":
1. "Summary-only descriptions of works."
2. "Lyrics databases."
3. "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics."
4. "Exhaustive logs of software updates."
Since this article is none of those, it does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cunard's argument. Provided the set has been discussed (it has) and items included have been called such in sources, I do not think this is indiscriminate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The inclusion criterion of "called a travel podcast in an independent source" is too indiscriminate. If this list is kept, it needs to be limited to notable examples, as otherwise it will become a massive directory of listicle-sourced non-notable topics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitthal Ramji Shinde

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

Promotional. The references don't add to the notability Gauravs 51 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the time of nomination, the article was partially hijacked to be about someone from Nigeria rather than the actual Indian subject. I get the impression that the nominator is challenging the notability of the correct subject as well (even that has been tagged as promotional since 2022), but I wanted to note the even-more-promotional hijacking — which I have reverted — that might have prompted the AfD. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Hinduism, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google books search [26] shows numerous sources. No indication of WP:BEFORE from the nominator. I see no issue with notability here. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book length biographies of the subject (eg M. S. Gore "Vitthal Ramji Shinde, an Assessment of His Contributions" Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1990). AGF regarding the nomination; "hijacking" explanation seems plausible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

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

Very promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and Nepal. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm persuaded by the arguments to Delete this article and there is a rough consensus to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala dynasty

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

This article is another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpal Dev Makwana for an example of a deleted article in this set and Jhala (clan) for an appropriately sourced version not created by a sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

The first set of sources are the unreliable ones:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev and the current head of the so-called "dynasty." It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), for example one figure defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
Kumarapala-prabandha appears to be mostly a repetition of legends
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.

Meanwhile, the independent sources do not present any of this legendary genealogy.

Ramusack's The Indian Princes and Their States has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the Jhalas (page 73)
Naravane's The Rajputs of Rajputana has a single paragraph describing the Jhalas as a "minor clan."
Singhji's The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the earlier stories, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."

Additional sources include WP:RAJ-era surveys of questionable reliability and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in a gazetteer.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Jhala dynasty includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this dynasty as presented in the article. With an adequately sourced article on the Jhala (clan) I think the best approach to this compromised article is WP:TNT. Bottom line: Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the article page, it does not seem to contain any far-fetched claims except the Origin section which should be renamed to 'Origin legend' or clarified that it is a traditional legend.

Also, the argument for unreliabity of the source Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India being that the co-author is a Jhala doesn't seem valid considering that there are probably a million of Jhala people and shouldn't make them ineligible to write on the subject. Both the authors are also scholars in anthropolgy with Jhala having served as the Professor of Anthropology at Temple University as per the linked press release.

I do believe more context can be added regarding the tradtional sources the authors have used. But deleting the article would be an extreme step. The subject is very much notable. Many later kingdoms, states and principalities claimed descent from the members of this dynasty. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Genealogy, Archive, Image isn’t only that it’s written by Jhalas. It’s that one of the authors claims to be the head of the dynasty (see link above) and the book is an effort to launder legends into a historical account. The other reliable sources to discuss the Jhalas do not do this, as I noted above. The appropriately sourced Jhala (clan) article covers this ground without retailing legends as facts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources to WP:RAJ and does not meet WP:HISTRS and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete due to not meeting general guidelines of WP:DEPTH, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RSSELF. Fails in WP:GNG, poorly built narratives using Non-reliable sources of British-Raj and sources have only passing mention as Book Headlines. ®asteem Talk 20:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 6 October 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. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, happy to provide. It's not clear that this is a goal, vs. mainspace removal Star Mississippi 14:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velpula Sarayu

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I would have possibly declined for the second time, but it does appear that the creator has made up their mind that she ranks the 6th in an unknown women category of a chess competition. The subject has participated in non notable competition, and has appeared in few sources, but there aren't WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. But why did you accept this AfC draft? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable chess player who played in non-nontable tournaments and has not made a significant and substantial achievement nationally or internationally worthy of notice to warrant a page on. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OP's acceptance of the AfC draft only to nominate it for deletion a minute later makes me concerned something WP:POINTy is going on. AfD does not exist to be used as a tool for making some kind of point to another editor. It's a process that costs a lot of time. If OP thought the topic was not notable, then OP should've saved us all the trouble by not accepting the submission at AfC. In any event, the topic apparently had one of the most sensational results in chess history, and there's multiple sources covering Sarayu, including in the context of that apparently landmark and sensational showing: [27] [28]. The particular competition's prominence might not personally impress OP (or at least, OP since a minute after accepting the article at AfC), but it apparently impressed people who observe and write about chess. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Hydrangeans. Also she was ranked 27th in the world among women and 2nd among girls at her peak rating of 2444, and is still comfortably among the top 100 women and top 10 girls. Sounds pretty notable to me. Bubka42 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify As I stated before I did say I wanted to keep, considering Hydrangeans reasoning was valid enough. But now due to the comment from RangerBus the matter of WP:BLP1E is significant considering how her importance did rise up until the tournament.

1) https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2023/Sep/14/checkmate-queen-meetvelpula-sarayu-a-17-year-oldchess-player-from-warangal-2614552.html https://telanganatoday.com/sarayu-emerged-champion-at-hcc-chess-tournament She establishes notability as presented in news articles.

2) As well as her https://2700chess.com/players/velpula_sarayu ratings in India (women) along with her global ranking for women and how she placed second in a competition beating everyone except a GM https://www.chess.com/news/view/indian-1800-rated-17-year-old-with-sensational-result 79lives (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did some more research out of the sources on the page and still I do not find her being notable as of yet. Per chess.com, the number one reliable website with all informations and ratings, the subject as of Oct 5, 2024, ranks #2297 in world ranking and #42 among under 20 aged ranking in India. She was rather unknown but became recognized by her performance at tournament Pontevedra Open in Spain in 2023. WP:BLP1E. Though she didn't win, she came in 2nd. But I do not see that she participated in same tournament again in 2024 or any other well known major national or international tournament where she got significant coverage. She doesn't hold the title of IM (International Master) or GM (Grand Master) like other under 20 aged players in India and world. Notability is a strong problem with this subject. Maybe it is too early. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my decision! I feel like now we should draftify considering the point for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, if she does come up in more tournaments and is considered better for her performance after a few of them then she can be put on an article perhaps.

79lives (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SUSTAINED is a significant concern, especially as a BLP who is clearly low-profile. Sources don't demonstrate lasting coverage at all, and that is the only thing that matters here: as there is no NCHESS guideline, her rankings are totally irrelevant to her meeting GNG. I'm not convinced there is a good enough chance of new coverage being published in the next six months, so don't really see that draftifying is warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 11 October 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. Star Mississippi 13:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cheat Expert

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. If sources are found, please ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Anti-Cheat Expert is a rather notable software in China and there are numerous resources about it in Chinese:

https://www.sohu.com/a/803766128_120840 (ACE was reported by China Game Report)

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1715266563479839884&wfr=spider&for=pc (PR Newswire's report about the game security summit held by ACE)

http://youxichaguan.com/news/30343.html (ACE was awarded as the best game service company in 2022)

Many popular games had cooperation with Anti-Cheat Expert and lots of gamers know this software. Yogurt moon123 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://intl.anticheatexpert.com/#/index (the official website-English version)

https://fairplayalliance.org/members/ (showing as a member of fair play alliance as many other notable gaming companies)

https://anticheatexpert.com/#/index (official Chinese website showing that ACE has passed ISO 27001 and ISO 27701)

https://www.cbinsights.com/company/anti-cheat-expert (introduction from cbinsights) Yogurt moon123 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced by the sources, simple announcements are insufficient to prove notability. The WP:SIGCOV doesn't seem to be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tencent per zh:游戏安全专家. IgelRM (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Aaron Liu, analyzing all sources in the Chinese article and the 4 sources that weren't official websites brought up here]]**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sohu.com/a/803766128_120840	~		No mention in original content	✘ No
http://youxichaguan.com/news/30343.html	~ Basically the Chinese industry's The Game Awards		Only mentioned that it got a prize. May shakily contribute towards some subject-specific guideline.	✘ No
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1715266563479839884&wfr=spider&for=pc	?	? published on Chinese Medium (website)	no mention	✘ No
https://www.cbinsights.com/company/anti-cheat-expert	? CB Insights is independent but writing looks like press-release copy	RSN discussion	~ one nothing-burger paragraph	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20191026133418/https://www.techweb.com.cn/onlinegamerim/2018-11-05/2710760.shtml	~ Source is aggregator, original source is independent & famous Chinese game hosting company "Four Three Nine Nine"	ditto		~ Partial
https://news.sina.com.cn/sx/2022-04-15/detail-imcwiwst2031104.shtml	Straight up copies their press release. See Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases			✘ No
http://www.gamelook.com.cn/2017/11/311055				✔ Yes
https://cn.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202111/05/WS6184fb41a3107be4979f6d94.html		WP:RSP: may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, [...] as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China		✔ Yes
ded link				? Unknown
ded link				? Unknown
https://blog.csdn.net/AntiCheatExpert/article/details/126759959#:~:text=%E8%85%BE%E8%AE%AF%E6%B8%B8%E6%88%8F%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E5%8F%91%E5%B8%83	literally from ACE			✘ No
https://www.prnasia.com/lightnews/lightnews-1-77-37383.shtml	美通社=PR Newswire			✘ No
https://news.sina.cn/sx/2023-03-24/detail-imymycye3038331.d.html			n omention	✘ No
https://www.hankyung.com/article/202404227507i		Korea Economic Daily is listed at WP:KO/RS#R		✔ Yes
https://m.inven.co.kr/webzine/wznews.php?idx=298100		? no mention found anywhere on wikipedia		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree withe the source analysis above. Crosses the line, although the article needs a lot of work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 6 October 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 Β-Lactam#Synthesis without prejudice against very selective merger. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

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

A couple of primary sources in the scientific literature do not show this topic meets WP:GNG, nor does it demonstrate that the topic merits a named reaction after the corresponding author. The current content is likely inaccessible to most readers. There may be some content that could be merged into β-Lactam#Synthesis. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. The only two sources are obscure papers written by the person for whom the process is named. This is borderline original research - akin to synthesis. We just don’t do that here. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into β-Lactam#Synthesis. The fact is that there are reliable sources (and not by Lectka) on this topic, as following: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O6ATDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA296&dq=Lectka+enantioselective+beta-lactam+synthesis&ots=ws2tn1YX9x&sig=GYBJX6WsGPmh7IcJp8TF4wEqTOU (Page 311), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B4cjEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA78&dq=Lectka+enantioselective+beta-lactam+synthesis&ots=eO8rdQmHOu&sig=MfXw_uyFnnHaBBlk-Gnj5kEcXfc (Page 100), https://doi.org/10.1021/ja012427r, Thus, I don't agree that it violates WP:OR. However, there's indeed no mentioning in the sources of the reaction being named after Lectka, thereby violating WP:GNG, so I would propose a merge. Pygos (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can identify specific text that is actually good enough to merit merging. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 7 October 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) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brett M. Johnson

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

There are no independent RS that provide direct and in-depth secondary coverage of this person. Hell, even the non-independent coverage are mostly trivial mentions that barely has their name appear a few times, interviews being a bit of an exception. I think the only CCS would be the "Senior Fellow in Entrepreneurship" but I find it rather dubious that anybody would seriously claim that's an actual academic position given what the about page says. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:subject has significant coverage including East Anglian Daily Times, New York Times and the Guardian here to meet WP:GNG for their notabilityTesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what part of that coverage you find addresses the subject directly and in detail as per WP:SIGCOV Tesleemah? I'm really not seeing it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly has WP:SIGCOV, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the first three sources considered "reliable sources" by WikiProject Football? I am honestly bewildered at the suggestion. Is there a list of these somewhere? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable figure in business and sports, meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly meets GNG per reliable sources; the Boston Globe longread provides thorough analysis and background on the person, and the East Anglian Daily Times offers decent coverage of Johnson on the occasion of his purchase of Ipswich Town FC and more (I've just added another good source by East Anglican to the page). --Moarnighar (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're going all in on calling repeating the subjects own words, slightly paraphrased, which a few "Johnson said" tossed around the place, thorough, independent analysis? 80% of both of the Globe articles aren't even about Johnson, it's literally Johnson talking about something else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see East Anglican has the needed not repeated from his own words or something deep coverage. At least in its two media articles. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabówka Ukazowa-Hamówka

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

This article was generated by a long-inactive bot (Kotbot), no equivalent article exists on the Polish wikipedia Kiwipete (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Delete. Kotbot made many errors. Thanks for spotting some likely ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 6 October 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) Charlie (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Maverick Effect

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

The book's page should be deleted as it fails to meet the notability guidelines for books, which require significant, independent coverage. The primary reviews cited to establish the book's notability are compromised due to conflicts of interest: one reviewer, a former brand custodian of a NASSCOM-affiliated company, currently advises on brand reputation to various IT companies in India as declared in the review's byline and actively promotes this book across social media as a part of its portfolio work, while the other is openly declaring himself as a personal friend of the author in the byline, making both reviews biased and unreliable. Furthermore, the remaining coverage consists only of trivial mentions and promotional excerpts, lacking substantial, independent analysis. As such, the book does not meet the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia article. Charlie (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Business, and India. Charlie (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs complete rewrite for sure. But I have added urls of 2 independent reviews. Reception section can be rewritten from it. - Nizil (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah I manually reinserted the two independent reviews you added, as they were not generating automatically. Thanks for adding those. Charlie (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is a review in Paradigm: A Management Research Journal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:49, 6 October 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 Hell Rell. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get in Line or Get Lined Up

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM. I tried to draftify, but the article was recreated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources given at all. The only one I could find was this review, but I'm not sure what it is worth. Either way, not enough for notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hell Rell. Found no reliable coverage beyond the RapReviews piece Chaotic Enby linked (regarded as a reliable source per RSMUSIC). No appearance of an NALBUM pass. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hell Rell per previous arguments. Ss112 02:55, 7 October 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. Star Mississippi 01:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Sanburn

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

No evidence of notability. Fbdave (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Arkansas, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not make an attempt to establish notability. - Skipple ☎ 13:30, 7 October 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 Tapir#Extinct species. ✗plicit 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeotapirus

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

According to Cerdeño and Ginsburg in 1988, the name Palaeotapirus was invalidated by Depéret in 1904 because the fossils were more closely related to those of Chasmotherium (not a tapirid), and he replaced the genus name for "Tapirus" helveticus with Paratapirus. While this should sound like an easy redirect, the issue is that there seems to be one later-described species Palaeotapirus xiejiaheensis that may still be pending a reassessment. Also, on a side note, "Palaeotapirus yagii" was reclassified to the new genus Plesiotapirus. Whether or not the page should be kept, renamed, or redirected on the basis of one species pending a reassessment is worth discussing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally merge somewhere. This is an interesting piece of historical trivia that, while insufficient to support an article on its own, should be kept in the encyclopedia precisely for the purpose of preventing a reader who sees this word "in the wild" from continuing down a dead end of searching for meaning. BD2412 T 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tapir#Extinct_species: Was a valid thing, has valid supporting refs, but doesn't merit a full article. Merge to where it can be discussed, then redirect to there. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or just Delete. Certainly no need to keep this as an invalid taxon. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, or else Delete. Not a sufficiently notable dubious taxon to justify an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 10:14, 11 October 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.