Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26 August 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Seeing as consensus was marginal, renomination is allowed in three months. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau–Spain relations

[edit]
Guinea-Bissau–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. This article is almost exclusively based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (may have even be copied in direct translation). I could not find third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article has plenty of material on diplomacy, foreign aid and trade. I added a chapter of the role of Spain as one of the foremost opponents of Guinea-Bissau independence. --Soman (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, and improve. The article meets none of the WP:DEL-REASON. The Nom’s concern about unbalanced sources makes sense but anyone has such a concern could just improve the article by editing it. Nihonjinatny (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets #7 of WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Have you found any reliable sources? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus to Keep but it would be more helpful if participants identified sources that help establish GNG. rather than making more generic statements about "sources".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. I encourage editors to improve the article so it doesn't make a return trip for a 2nd AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peller (comedian)

[edit]
Peller (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Stub-class assessed article, Not notable to be on mainspace, from the references provided, article fails WP:SIGCOV, no in-depth information as regards to weather it should be kept on Wikipedia as a stand alone article, there are little references from secondary sources, seams very promotional and I think it should be deleted, all I see is mentions and references about social media “Tiktok” which has nothing to do with Notability on Wikipedia. Getreallycool (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Reading Beans 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage, and that is because the person has not yet achieved any solid achievements. Per Nom, WP:TOOSOON. Nihonjinatny (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okanlawon, Taiwo (2 June 2024). "Five things you need to know about Peller". PM News. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
    • Akinyemi, Femi (17 April 2024). "Peller: Teenage sensation taking digital world by storm". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
    • Okanlawon, Taiwo (30 May 2024). "Meet Peller; TikTok newest sensation". PM News. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
    • Alabi, Taiwo (13 February 2024). "The TikTok Titans of Nigeria: Top 5 Creators Making Waves". TheNEWS. Retrieved 14 August 2024.

I want to note that no form of WP:BEFORE was made by this apparently very new user before nominating an article for deletion. There argument that it is a stub article has nothing to do with notability nor does being a TikTok personality prevent one from being notable as noted in their nomination. Best, Reading Beans 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on newly found sources would be helpful. By the way, nominator has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second source looks fine, I'm not sure if it's a RS... Still feels TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don’t like replying !voters but I don’t think you’re doing any WPBEFORE here. PM News is a national daily newspaper in Nigeria and your stance about the subject being TOOSOON when there are significant in-depth coverage from reliable sources is something I still do not understand and that is because our opinion differs. Anyways, here’s another source from ThisDay—a national daily newspaper too. here. If you want to make a search about him to find more sources, you can use this this. Best, Reading Beans 05:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus or specific comments on sources and whether they are adequate. This is more useful than general talk about "sources" without identifying which ones provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, having completed a source analysis. Sources given above by commenters are included; sources marked as reliable or unreliable are per WP:NGRS unless otherwise indicated. I found another source which I have included as well.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/06/02/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-peller/ Yes Yes No A list of five facts about Peller in one sentence each; the entire source consists of eight sentences/136 words. ✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/peller-teenage-sensation-taking-digital-world-by-storm/ Yes Yes Yes Focused on Peller, good length and detail ✔ Yes
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/05/30/meet-peller-tiktok-newest-sensation/ Yes Yes Yes Another good source focused on Peller ✔ Yes
https://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2024/02/13/the-tiktok-titans-of-nigeria-top-5-creators-making-waves/ Yes Yes No Brief coverage of Peller alongside other performers ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/06/01/peller-the-teenager-who-went-from-tiktok-fan-to-social-media-star/ Yes Yes No Short article with not much information ✘ No
https://leadership.ng/tiktok-sensation-peller-joins-city-plug-talent-ahead-of-pellers-palava-release/ Yes There is a two-sentence quote from Peller, but I don't believe this is enough to make it non-independent Yes Yes In my opinion borderline, but enough to be SIGCOV. ✔ Yes
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}}.
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 add sources mentioned in this discussion into the article which only has two archived references. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armanon Ka Balidaan-Aarakshan

[edit]
Armanon Ka Balidaan-Aarakshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Again, I can't close this AFD with a "Categorize" closure but it appears that this work has been done during this discussion period. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of doctors working in the British media

[edit]
List of doctors working in the British media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are, of course, doctors who work in British media, I wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss this as a group. toweli (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svampesky created Category:Medical doctors in British media and added articles to it a week ago. toweli (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Southern Institute of Technology#Campuses. Content can always be merged as well. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue TV

[edit]
Cue TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail general notability requirements. I also can't find any media sources. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LATAM Brasil destinations

[edit]
List of LATAM Brasil destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is in large part a list of places that LATAM Brasil wasn't regularly flying to in January 2024, as is indicated by many of them being listed as "terminated"/seasonal or as not being operated by LATAM Brazil. The destinations flown to by LATAM Brasil are already adequately summarised in LATAM Airlines Brasil#Destinations, and their historical development is already discussed at LATAM Airlines Brasil#History, meaning this page is redundant. Wikipedia is not the place to seek to publish original historical research about where Airlines used to fly.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2015, but the part that is sourced is sourced to the company website, enthusiast blogs like Routesonline, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

For the same reasons I am also nominating List of LATAM Perú destinations which suffers from all of the same problems. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, Brazil, and Peru. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business. The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This a is substantially the same information as the company publishes themselves, as is indicated by the use of the company website and company publications/press-releases as the source for them. Simply transcribing that on to Wiki is reproducing a catalogue, and indiscriminate. I note that you don’t cite even a single source to address the NCORP issues. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to expand on the original research issues raised in the nom, let's take the listing of Caracas as a "terminated" destination. This is cited to a 404 link to a May 2016 article on the Airlineroutes.com blog, which apparently was titled "LATAM Gradually Ends Venezuela Service late-May 2016". Setting aside that this is a WP:V fail because it's 404, and a low-quality source, instantly you can see that this is problematic because the service was described as "gradually" ending at some point in the future by routesonline.com, without any indication that it did end, nor is there any indication that the service wasn't being operated in January 2024. In actual fact LATAM Brasil are selling flights from Caracas right now on their website and probably were in January as well.
This is exactly the kind of problem you would expect to get when you synthesise primary sources through original research and exactly the reason why it is something we do not do on Wikipedia, yet it is used throughout this article and indeed in every airline destination-list article. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDB. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a mirror of airline databases like FlightConnections.com. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FlightConnections is a great site, so I assume you'll be adding this link to LATAM Airlines Brasil if this list is deleted? If this commercial website is an adequate replacement, do you support using it to cite LATAM Airlines Brasil#Destinations and other airline pages? However, Wikipedia is still welcome to have content that may be found elsewhere, with its wikilinks providing navigation and the opportunity for other context. Reywas92Talk 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with citing flight schedule aggregators like FlightConnections to describe in the parent article where the airline operates. The data are the same whether they're coming straight from the airline or compiled by a third-party site. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here. It's not a catalogue as it's not promotional, where an airline flies is necessary and encyclopedic to understanding the airline's scope, and it's sourced well enough that we're able to have it on the site. There are 23 sources at the moment, only one of which is to the airline's website, so the "largely unsourced" is battleground language, and there's an attempt to exclude the number of news sites and blogs which significantly cover airline routes from ever being reliable, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it doesn't matter that it is non-promotional, it can still be a non-notable catalog. Delete per nom. Also fails to be significantly discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Brands Hatch. As explained by Liz, the nomination is not tainted ex post facto by the subsequent topic ban of the nominator. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brands Hatch Racing

[edit]
Brands Hatch Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable team that did not qualify for a single Grand Prix it entered. WP:SIGCOV is literally non-existent. All WP:RS leads to the track it is named after. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:37, 13 August 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 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Daegu

[edit]
List of tallest buildings in Daegu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated after successful PROD in 2022. AfDing with PROD rationale per extensive consensus on these types of lists. Minimal navigational purpose given that only two of these buildings have articles (one article for both actually) and are unlikely to have sufficient coverage for articles, and the topic of tall buildings in Daegu as a whole has no significant coverage that I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I FCS football independents records

[edit]
List of NCAA Division I FCS football independents records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A consensus emerged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NCAA Division III independents football records that a list like this fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because this is a group of loosely-related teams that are not in conferences. A merge to a different article would also be difficult for undue weight issues, as expressed in the previous AfD. A similar AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NCAA Division II independents football records) resulted in a soft deletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have extremely little subject-matter knowledge here, but the arguments Jeff in CA have made seem reasonable, and the sources he has provided seem to show that this is indeed a type of list compiled by secondary sources, thus meeting NLIST. The Fox and ESPN pages he linked do seem to sort the independent teams by Division. Toadspike [Talk] 12:14, 4 September 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 Makor Rishon. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NRG360

[edit]
NRG360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into Makor Rishon. Brief article on a once popular website that disappeared into Makor Rishon. Best merged into Makor Rishon at Enwiki as well. Using AfD in order to keep the cleanup of the Israeli news websites together. Please take a moment also to express your opinion at the other AfDs in this series! gidonb (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee on National Security Systems

[edit]
Committee on National Security Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Non-notable intergovernmental committee. Fleeting mentions and routine coverage that doesn't establish independent notability. Redirect to Department of Defense. Longhornsg (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The committee (under different names) is 70+ years old. Multiple sources exist. Dimawik (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kandiss Taylor

[edit]
Kandiss Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Non-notable. Came in third in a primary. Per the policy, notability is based on "a politician has receiving "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Coverage is related to routine campaign developments or controversial things she's said over the course of her political career. Non-notable politician. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So, she's a failed political candidate that got mocked about being a flat-earther (nor not, depending on who you believe); regardless, I don't see notability. Running for office isn't notable, career looks routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed political candidate, only reason she's attracted some passing coverage is bizarre comments accusing people of being Satanists. That's not how we build a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and the fact that she bobs back up to the surface of the news cycle every once in a while for saying stupid stuff is not in and of itself a reason why her unsuccessful candidacy would be more special than everybody else's unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh/Comment: This person should not be notable but it is a weird part of the current US Republican party that fringe people who say truly wild things get more traction and press coverage than one would think possible. So the case for notability is not and could not be based on merely being a failed political candidate in a GOP primary seeking a US House seat. On the other hand, it is notable that a Georgia GOP regional chair is saying Jews are 'controlling everything'. I just checked to see if Valentina Gomez has an article - she's the Missouri GOP'er who ran for Secretary of State who says totally bonkers things. She doesn't have an article either. So I'm going to go along with the consensus to delete here as the wiser outcome.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aamna Malick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Closed as no consensus in June of this year. I did not see the discussion at the time but just followed the trail of a now blocked IP editor. There are currently two sources on the page. The first is this which just mentions her as being in the film. The other is this which does the same (doesn't even mention the role) and is also unreliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a lot of tabloid press, brief mentions, and unreliable sources. A redirect may be an appropriate WP:ATD if someone can recommend a good target. Will ping previous participants below. CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Notifying previous participants due to the last discussion being recent - @Saqib:, @Dclemens1971:, @Mushy Yank:, @KH-1:, @Otbest: --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My opinion remains the same after a second look at the article: the coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage and thus no pass of WP:GNG. Acting credits don't appear to be significant enough for WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant (not lead but not minor) roles in notable productions. A good target for a redirect might be List of Pakistani actresses but I personally cannot see why a standalone page shouldn't be kept. Still, a Redirect would be better than deletion, to which I am opposed. Note: her name is sometimes spelled Amna (with one A) She also received coverage for her private life/break in her career. Her presence among the housemates of the reality show Tamasha indicates she can be considered a celebrity (and although famous is not the same as notable, one can reasonably argue that she's famous for being an actress and that it is therefore probably fair to find her notable). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need significant coverage. Are you able to provide links to some sources providing such?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, WP:NBIO also states meeting WP:NACTOR does not guarantee that a subject should be included.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of film distributors by country#Pakistan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Films

[edit]
Hum Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mainly routine announcements or unreliable unreliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA (churnalism, no bylines, etc.). Even the films it lists are questionable based on WP:WALLEDGARDEN as many of the pages they link to do not even mention the company. The one I checked that does (Mah e Mir) uses this WP:FAKEREF which doesn't mention the company at all. A redirect to Hum Network would be a good WP:ATD, but based on previous attempts to do other pages in the film-space the same way, we would be here at AfD anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Jenkins

[edit]
Nathaniel Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of an academic fails WP:GNG. I also cannot find any evidence it passes a criterion of WP:NACADEMIC; his h-index of 25 is on the low side for an associate professor in the life sciences. None of the awards constitute a pass under WP:ANYBIO. We don't have any third-party or non-primary sources in this article, either, and I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzy (band)

[edit]
Buzy (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed a WP:BEFORE search; has already been de-PRODded, so here we are. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekimasu/WP:BAND. DCsansei (talk) 16:01, 1 September 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 Spoiler effect. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler campaign

[edit]
Spoiler campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a coat rack for partisan criticism of political candidates outside of the two major parties in the United States. User:Namiba 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold keep it. 101.119.180.188 (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Agree that this is a case of WP:COATRACK. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Jean Cocteau#Further reading. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Cocteau bibliography

[edit]
Jean Cocteau bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for a standalone article on this, can easily be incorporated into Jean Cocteau#Further reading if relevant. --woodensuperman 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer wider community input on this, as I have spotted that there are a number of these in Category:Books about film directors, so would like to see how appropriate we think these are as articles. Whilst Orson Welles bibliography seems a worthwhile article, I don't think we need Roberto Rossellini bibliography or Lars von Trier bibliography for example. --woodensuperman 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(also note that if this is kept it should be renamed to Bibliography of works on Jean Cocteau per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Naming). --woodensuperman 11:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss whether to merge or not, WP:PROPMERGE outlines step by step, how to propose a merge and gather more input from community. AfD is not the right forum.
Think you've nailed it on the head – that the long ones like Orson Welles bibliography seem appropriate as a standalone, whereas the short ones like this one do not. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to discuss here, as I think that this and similar articles should be deleted. I'm not sure that it is necessary to merge, hence the "if relevant". --woodensuperman 12:43, 21 August 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) 16:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Conestoga College. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conestoga College Digital TV

[edit]
Conestoga College Digital TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google News searching “Conestoga College Digital TV” yields no result. No independent significant coverage. Northern Moonlight 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conestoga College: I draftified this as the CCDTV social profiles do not help with wp:NORG. Doesn’t seem there is other material. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 20 August 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) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Pšenko

[edit]
Michal Pšenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2002 Winter Olympics#Nordic combined because I could not find any significant coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German article mostly provides database and not significant coverage in reliable sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at Enzyklopädie des Skispringens which provides pages of coverage to him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appreciated if there are exact links to there. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Participated in four Nordic Ski World Championships. In 1999 he participated in both ski jumping and combined. That's pretty unusual, however he usually placed lowly as an "also-ran". Geschichte (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 20 August 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) 16:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Colotlán. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Colotlán

[edit]
Symbols of Colotlán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure how this article can pass basic WP:GNG, Symbols? The title seems wrong, I would suggest a part merge to Colotlán or either delete. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 20 August 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) 16:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Jaiswar

[edit]
Arvind Jaiswar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:V. I looked at the sources in the article and each one appears to have the same content word for word. Frost 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Clear COI/vanity page with no real claim of notability. Passages like "renowned for his expertise in various disciplines including karate, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts (MMA)" is unacceptable for wiki. Sourcing is atrocious. No significant and reliable sources found as per WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. Sources appear to be self-published. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears the same article was published at as many websites as the author could find, which clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There lots of puffery (a first dan black belt is not "prestigious") and nothing that shows any SNG is met. Fightmatrix shows no MMA fights for him, nothing to show notability as a kickboxer (WP:NKICK) or martial artist (WP:MANOTE). Likely a COI and possibly an autobiography. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MOS:PUFFERY - no indication of notability. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 12:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafika Ben Chaouacha-Chekir

[edit]
Rafika Ben Chaouacha-Chekir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NPERSON Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Sabri

[edit]
Amina Sabri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG notability cannot be inherited from relatives. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

[edit]
Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created after a page move. According to WP:D2D "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.". There is only one Wikipedia article with this wording: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and that page includes the two other links on this "disambiguation" page making this WP:CFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. Anyone searching for Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations will find that same information on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations therefore the page should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, the page which was renamed from Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: since there seems to be a misunderstanding, 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is not only about one set of allegations (1993), there is a lengthy section there about further allegations with links to all articles on Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit #2: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links makes it clear that disambiguation pages are for similarly named articles, not for associated content in completely differently named articles, as is the case with the nominated page:

"These non-article pages exist to clarify and ease confusion in cases where two or more similarly named articles exist—for example, if two or more notable people have the same name"

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is not a disambiguation page, just a list of links forked from 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations the creator wanted to promote. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually ever redirect to templates like that? I've never seen that done before. Popcornfud (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw disambiguation used the way you want to use it here, for articles with titles not sharing even one word or at least the meaning of the word in the disambiguation page's title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_(disambiguation) Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to a template? Not a good idea in my opinion. C F A 💬 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below by Liz are enlightening to me. I still advocate this be turned into a redirect, but for redirect to what article, I don't know. — Maile (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is logical to redirect this to the article that has the same content and which used to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations before it was renamed. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what the user expects that's what he will find after a redirect here as contrary to Popcornfud's assertion, '1993' is not only about 'the 1993' allegations. If disambiguation is not about the wording is there an example where not a word in the disambiguation page's title matches a word in the linked titles? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (and the edit to your initial post above) is disingenuous. The focus of the 1993 article is the 1993 allegations, hence the article title. There's a subsection at the end that summarises the later allegations, with links to the main articles about those allegations. Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it summarizes the later allegations Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations does the same thus WP:CFORK / WP:REDUNDANT. It's disingenuous to say that the 1993 article focuses on 1993 and the 490-words section about other allegations does not matter when they highlight the same allegations and links you want the user to find based on an arbitrary search term that is just one of many possible variations (Michael Jackson sex allegations, Michael Jackson sexual assault allegations, Michael Jackson sex scandals etc.) With this logic a page titled Michael Jackson's siblings could be created with this content:
Michael Jackson has multiple siblings.
Then we could call it a disambiguation page because when a user searches for "Michael Jackson's siblings" we don't know which siblings they are looking for. Such a page would be deleted because it would be a fork of Jackson family , redudant and not a genuine disambiguation page. Same is true here. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply redirect to the 1993 allegations and then just make that the general page for the allegations instead. Never17 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or revert the page move so that the 1993 page goes back to its original title. PamD 20:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a redirect I agree with the nominator's reasoning. According to WP:D2D, disambiguation is necessary when a word or phrase might lead a reader to more than one existing Wikipedia article. Should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, which exited first and have all of the same information already. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move the 1993... article back to the base title. Either there are other non-1993 allegations on which wikipedia has content, in which case the dab page is justified (ie the "trial" article: not sure about the film), or the 1993 article covers all allegations in which case it should not have been moved and should be moved back. I know nothing much about Michael Jackson, but I do know that dab pages should be logical. PamD 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree both should not exist at the same time as there is clear overlap between them. MraClean (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations per the nominator and WP:D2D. or revert the recent page move of 1993 Michael Jackson's sexual abuse allegations per PamD. Someone searching for Michael Jackson sex abuse allegations or Michael Jackson allegations or any other variation of the subject will find all those articles in the search result on wiki anyway, don't see why there should be a dedicated page for the term "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations".MraClean (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those pages should redirect to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Popcornfud (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there are no such pages and shouldn't be, it would be unnecessary. Anyone searching for any of those phrases, including Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, finds all three articles in the search results. There is no need for a new page just to show the same links which are the top results anyway. MraClean (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It's WP:CFORK, it's just a shorter version of 1993's further allegations section and I never saw a dab page like this. Leaving Neverland is an article about the film with that title, this makes it look like that's where the accusers made the allegations. Should this page contain a link to an article about their original accusations in their lawsuit, if one existed? And if it did should then Leaving Neverland be removed from the list and if not should other films covering the same topic listed too? Then why stop at films, why not include links to articles about books on the same subject. This is not what disambiguation pages are for. 2BOARNOT2B (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sure seem to have strong opinions on Wikipedia policies for an editor with only four previous edits (two of them to another Michael Jackson debate). Popcornfud (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's WP:PA, not an answer to my questions. I've been an editor since 2021, I just changed my username. You edited in far more Jackson debates than myself does that make your knowledge of wiki policies less accurate? I've seen countless disambiguation pages, there is nothing like this one among them. It has the same stuff as the Further allegations on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations therefore WP:CFORK. There is no logic in why those 3 links should have a dedicated page. We could put the link and summary of every wiki article that has something about the allegations (Square One, Neverland Firsthand , FBI Files, Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, Michael Jackson's Boys etc.) say they are "associated with the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" but that is just not what disambiguation pages are for. As I see Robertsky says this is not a dabpage either, you changed the {Set index article} tag to {Disambiguation} after an editor pointed out that the titles are different thus WP:SETINDEX does not apply. You need similar titles to make this either a disamb or a sex index page. Those are the rules. 2BOARNOT2B (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After four years, I have closed thousands of AFD discussions and have never closed one, or seen an AFD discussion closed by another admin, that resulted in a Redirect from main space to template space. I don't think that cross-namespace redirects (at least main space->template) are permitted. If you are advocating a different redirect target article, like a main space article, please specify the article by providing a link to it, just don't just say "Redirect" without mentioning the redirect target article. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not covered by R2, but I don't think I've ever seen one in the wild. I think it would be strange to arrive at a template as a reader. C F A 💬 12:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several editors have suggested redirecting the broader title Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations to the more specific title 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, ie from a general to a more specific title. If the 1993 article is indeed the appropriate place to redirect the general title, then it should be moved back to that general title, from which it was moved, rather than leave a redirect from a general to a narrow title. PamD 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1993 article is not an overview page about all the allegations in general. The focus is the 1993 allegations, hence the title. I can't stress this enough.
    Read through the three different pages in question here (or just their leads) and I hope the difference in focus between them will be clear. Popcornfud (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may stress that but it won't change the fact that there is a 490-words section for further allegations on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations including the same links you want to promote with Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. All the later page does is cheerypick links you want to get extra attention. A user searching for the term Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations will find everything on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegation. All he has to do is click on the same links there. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is immensely frustrating. Instead of responding to comments, the nominator is repeatedly updating their initial nom with "edits" supposedly "clarifying" things, which repeatedly resets the starting position of the debate in their favor. I do not, as the most recent edit alleges, wish to "promote" anything on Wikipedia. Please give this nonsense a rest. Popcornfud (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not reset the starting position as my position did not change at all. I put those edits there instead of in comments because I didn't want to spam the voting sections informing everyone about that policy. You started an RFC to change the title of the article only to create this one redefining what disambiguation pages are. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not create the page Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, which is under discussion here. That was created by @Robertsky. The previous page by that title was moved after a discussion which received no opposing votes. Almost everything you're adding to this debate is just untrue. Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know well what I meant by created. Robensky merely moved the page after the RFC that you started following a sock puppet's proposal to rename the page and then it was you who built it along with the sock puppet and an editor exposed for using reddit to try to get more attention for the allegations. Otherwise what was untrue what I said here? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if updating the nom is worse than WP:BLUDGEONING but it's useful to include all relevant policies behind a nom.Guitarjunkie22 next time please gather all your evidence before nominating.MraClean (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the 1993 article. Dabpages are about matching titles. In a previous edit where I accidentally linked to a disambiguation page I got an automatic warning from DPL WikiProject that "Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles." Titles here are entirelly different. If this page is not redirected then all links to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations in all articles will be, by definition, a dablink. There are 5 expections under WP:INTDABLINK where intentional links to a dabpages is appropriate, none of it is true here. PinkSlippers (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when I created this after the page was moved, it was intended to be a set index article, not a dab page. If there's any confusion, I apologize for that. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this can't be a set index article either as Wikipedia:Set index articles list things only of one type and the same/similar names. There is a table on WP:SIA that clarifies this: How to tell whether the page could be a set index article: similar names / similar subject. The example of WP:SIA is Dodge Charger, where all linked articles have similar names. The footer of the the page you created also says This article includes a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names). . But Trial of Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland and 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations obviously are not same or similar names. MraClean (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the 1993 page as per nomination. The existence of this page serves no purpose whatsoever and should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Wikipedia encourages editors to avoid redundant articles that cover the same topic. Instead, efforts should be made to improve and expand a single, comprehensive article, but the 1993 allegations article is already that. Wikipedia discourages "content forking," where content is split into multiple articles to present different viewpoints or variations on the same topic. Instead, different perspectives should be integrated into a single article, following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The existence of this article breaks with this. Finally, if there are multiple articles on closely related or exact same subjects that do not warrant their own pages, they may be merged or redirected. This helps prevent fragmentation of information across several minor articles. This article will only get redirected in the future anyway to prevent Wikipedia clutter. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations: there's nothing in the disambiguation page that's not in the that article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed by nominator to the 1993 article. This is an interesting debate but as the page creator himself admitted above it was not meant to be a WP:DISAMB page He says it is WP:SIA, however the different article titles do not allow it to be a WP:SIA either, there is no wiki policy under which this page can exist. Keeping it would just create a precedent to create similar pages of arbitrarly selected link lists associated with a topic. The 1993 article is a good starting point for this subject anyway, it has summaries of the other allegations too.Mr Boar1(talk) 20:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear that the article does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians. Many keep arguments were not based on policy and were discounted. There were some suggestions to draftify the article, but there was not clear consensus for this. Malinaccier (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remah Naji

[edit]
Remah Naji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently a political candidate at an upcoming federal election in Australia. I can't see that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It was clearly written for self-promotion. She is not yet a public figure and not a politician. All of the attached references also seem to be somewhat self-reported and most of the sources seem insufficient. She is not an academic despite some references to her being an 'educator' and WP:NPOL states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." 2001:8003:6DE4:E800:2414:EC58:4584:986F (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What do you mean "apparently"? They're in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Women's Agenda, and on Serious Danger within a week of their announcement. Stop trying to use process to remove women's polticial history. User:Monjento|Monjento 23:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify: This and this are fairly in-depth but there isn't much outside of that. Political candidates are always going to have some coverage so this isn't enough to overcome NPOL and meet WP:NBASIC. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if she wins the election. C F A 💬 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your subjective opinion? Why are you targetting removing the history of a women of colour, who is a refugee, from a minority party contesting a seat that is marginal? Monjento (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Key word there is "marginal", meaning it's not that important. Woman of color isn't notable alone; if she wins the election, she would be notable. Paying a fee to register as a candidate doesn't get you an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's not what marginal means in this context. In Australian politics, when a seat is marginal it means that it's the one to watch because of its signficance and likelihood to change. Monjento (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So she's notable for being a candidate of colour? That doesn't get you an article either, people of all colours and creeds run in elections, everywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see her meeting WP:NPOL as a political candidate. It is irrelevant that she is a woman of colour, refugee or from a minority party. She needs to meet WP:BIO which she doesn't. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is another comment that is subjective of whether the WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Neither say how many articles are required.
    It is relevant to consider those demographics in the context of the Wikipedia projects to ensure that women's history isn't erased. This is signficant in Australia, which I note that you're not from. Monjento (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that I am in or not in Australia? LibStar (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Running for office isn't notable, being from this country or that country doesn't affect notability here. Career is non-notable outside of the political run. The sources used are articles about getting to know the candidate, rather routine. She's only running in a place with 100,000 folks, which is rather tiny on a national scale. Could be notable if and when elected, just TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Australia. All of our electorates are this size. This comment is devoid from the reality of the Australian poltical landscape. Monjento (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100k is tiny in a country with millions, you're about the same as Canada for pete's sake Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct as a sensible approximation: "This is Australia. All of our electorates are this size." References: 2022 federal election enrolment statistics and The voting population of each Australian electoral division showing most are very roughly around 110,00 - 120,00, and about 30% are smaller than 100,000. It's irrelevant that Australia and Canada have about the same population and size because they are different countries and have differences in their electoral systems. Lady alys (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She isn't even scheduled to run in an election, she's only a declared future candidate. She paid a fee and got her name added on a list. The election hasn't been called and we don't know when it will, there is no by-election happening. She's barely even a candidate at this point; IF an election gets called AND she's still interested, she'll be on the ballot. Please read CRYSTALBALL, as that helps understand why she's not yet notable (and may or may not ever be at this point). This person may be notable at some point in the future, if an election happens... Too many if's and but's to keep the article at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Naji's significance lies in her representation of three issues of great significance in Australia especially as there will be a federal election by May 2025. Last weekend's election in the Northern Territory resulted in a very large swing against the party of the current federal government, and towards the Greens. The high level of national discontent with the Labor government over environmental policy, women's issues, and the current situation in Gaza, mmeans that Naji is in a position of overlap. Her electorate of Moreton is one of the most winnable seats for the Greens in the 2025 federal election. Australia is a middle power, and our political landscape will have an impact on our regional and international policies. Naji is an important political figure to watch. Paperbarkk (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC) — Paperbarkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    That's very much what TOOSOON covers, she isn't notable now, but might be in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. The article can be recreated if she is elected. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL pretty clearly. The sources we have are rather routine in their coverage for the most part, focus on just stating who the candidate is (WP:ROUTINE coverage), or lack the depth to be of significance towards meeting notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails WP:NPOL. If candidate wins election, then page should be created. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify If she wins office, she'll meet NPOL and the draft can be edited and submitted via AfC or moved to mainspace. If she doesn't, the draft will probably languish and eventually be deleted. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete; the article has some NPOV issues but it's pretty easily salvageable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion about socking that can be discussed in the thread at ANI. Also a reminder to keep things civil. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear NPOL failure. The suggestion made above that my colleagues are "trying to use process to remove women's polticial history" is ridiculous and offensive, and should be struck or explicitly withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Has potential as a major-party candidate in a winnable seat, but not ready for mainspace until notability is more firmly established (i.e. election victory or exceptional coverage of her campaign). Existing sources are more or less routine election coverage or represent coverage of broader pro-Palestine activism rather than being "about" Naji herself. I T B F 💬 08:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's draftified the editor would likely move it straight back to mainspace, like they did after it was draftified by an admin and then rejected by an AFC reviewer. See my comment below for details. TarnishedPathtalk 09:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it would get speedied. No harm, no foul. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • On 16/08/2024 with the edit at Special:Diff/1240636409 Deb moved Remah Naji to draft with edit summary "Deb moved page Remah Naji to Draft:Remah Naji without leaving a redirect: Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): nowhere near ready for article space".
    • Deb notified Monjento on their talk at Special:Diff/1240636897.
    • On 17/08/2024 Monjento submitted the article to AFC with edit Special:Diff/1240645572.
    • On 17/08/2024 the article was rejected by an AFC reviewer at Special:Diff/1240651098 with them leaving edit summary "*Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH)".
    • On 17/08/2024 Monjento, despite the article being rejected by AFC, moved it to mainspace at Special:Diff/1240708788.
    • The next edit at Special:Diff/1240708996 Monjento removed the AFC templates, including a comment left by the AFC reviewer, and left a personal attack in their edit summary writing "Removed the editorialised and uneducated opinion of someone that does not live in Australia".TarnishedPathtalk 09:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This [5] is a brief article about the individual, which seems to largely mirror the prose used here for some reason. It doesn't really show notability outside of the political run, which is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no by-election scheduled in Division of Moreton anytime soon, and an election hasn't been called in Australia and doesn't seem to be scheduled until 2025. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, candidates for political office are rarely, if ever, notable enough to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. If Naji is elected to Parliament, then she would be notable. Bkissin (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's not even an election happening soon? Why are we debating this then, "someone who has an intention to run at some future point in the next 18 mths in a yet uncalled election", isn't notable. Her career is rather routine otherwise and would not pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The election must be called in the next 6 months and completed by May 2025. It could be over as soon as December, That’s a lot less than 18 months. It’s confusing, but see Next Australian federal election#Election date for details. twilsonb (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for being named as candidates in future elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not running for one, and as yet unelected candidates get articles only if they can demonstrate that either (a) they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independently of being named as a candidate, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those are on offer here.
    Also, unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show some evidence of campaign coverage — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable. So a candidate only becomes notable if she passes one of the two tests I noted above. And a candidate is also not exempted from NPOL just because she's female: as important as "women's political history" is, it does not require us to maintain biographical articles about every woman who ever ran as a candidate in an election she didn't win. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify: Meets WP:GNG, as of 3 September the article has roughly 10 reliable sources with significant coverage, including multiple national newspapers. Half of those sources talk about things other that her candidacy, so she meets the general notability guidelines. Also happy to see it draftified, so it can gather more edits with reliable sources. twilsonb (talk) 01:48, 3 September 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 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPXO

[edit]
IPXO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable network services company, fails WP:CORP. Articles is sourced only by press releases and sponsored content, and I could find no WP:SIGCOV from reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taraba News

[edit]
Taraba News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. There are zero reliable secondary sources; the sources include blogs and primary sources, which contribute nothing towards establishing notability. The article also appears promotional, but I chose to take it to AfD rather than tag it under WP:G11. It fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. GrabUp - Talk 10:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. I was about to nominate it for speedy deletion db-web: it's a news-reposting blog, with no bylines on the stories posted, and the content all appears to have been copied from other websites. Wikishovel (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wanted it to be speedy deleted, but I wasn’t confident enough because ‘the article has been in the main space for a 2 hours, and many NPP reviewers added maintenance tags but didn’t tag it for CSD.’ Additionally, admins sometimes decline CSD due to claims of notability. I thought it would be better to take it to AfD. No worries. GrabUp - Talk 10:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Literally nothing to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xhoi Hajdëraj

[edit]
Xhoi Hajdëraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 6 times on Albania's first tier and a further 21 matches on Albania's semi-professional second tier, though he still plays there an article is WP:TOOSOON. A WP:BEFORE found only stat sites, primary sources and passing mentions such as this. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glorian Hoxha

[edit]
Glorian Hoxha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 8 times on Albania's first tier and a further 11 matches on Albania's semi-professional second tier. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Kuwaiti protests (2011–2012). Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Abul

[edit]
Nasser Abul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is not notable at all; it's only his trial that sparked controversy around him. فيصل (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM College of Medical Sciences

[edit]
SDM College of Medical Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 12 years. Cabayi (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16 Kalas as Per Lord Krishna for a Happy Life

[edit]
16 Kalas as Per Lord Krishna for a Happy Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps we could do with a neutral article, with a neutral title, for the subject; but this one should get the WP:TNT treatment as completely and unsalvageably lacking all neutrality. Perhaps it could be speedy deleted as advertising/promotion? Fram (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram. Thanks for reviewing this article. The article has decent references in secondary sources to qualify as per Wikipedia guidelines.It also has decent searches in Google for guidelines on leading a happy life.It has been mentioned in leading book in Hinduism. Hence I feel it needs to be in this platform where it will be improved in period of time and followed world over in this platform. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecahedral cupola

[edit]
Dodecahedral cupola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No books nor articles explicitly says anything about this polychoron. See Google Books and Google Scholars. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 396

[edit]
NGC 396 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalog of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim (surname)

[edit]
Kim (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any non-Korean people with the surname, so since there is also Kim (Korean surname) and List of people with the Korean family name Kim, I don't see the purpose of this page. I did transfer two stage names to the main dab page. The few fictional characters can also go on the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Channel North Television

[edit]
Channel North Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Adel Bagrou. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagrou

[edit]
Bagrou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find sources for similarly-named places, but not where I can be sure it is the one this is about. Happy to withdraw if the information can be verified. Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the town's name in Arabic; "بكرو" can be translated as "Bogué" which is a real place (Google Maps) There is also an account of a visit to the town on this blog. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic wiki entry linked to this article, w:ar:بكرو, says (Google translated)
"Adl Bakrou is a district and municipality located in Hodh Ech Chargui State in Mauritania".
The Arabic wiki entry linked to Adel Bagrou, w:ar:عدل بكرو, says (Google translated)
"Adel Bagrou (French: Adel Bagrou), an administrative center in the Hodh El Chargui region , in the southeastern region of Mauritania, located on the border with Mali , in 2000 its population was 36,007..."
The place is clearly the sizable town and commune in Hodh Ech Chargui Region. (The Bogué (بوكى) found on the map by a Google search is spelled differently in Arabic and is far to the west of Hodh Ech Chargui Region.)
Alternatively, move to Adel Bagrou (Commune) and clean up, and change Adel Bagrou to only discuss the town. There are plenty of results from a search on عدل_بكرو with information like: "Prime Minister, Mr. Mohamed Ould Bilal Messoud, laid the foundation stone today, Friday, in the Adl Bakrou district for the road linking the cities of Adl Bakrou and Amerj in the Hodh El Chargui state." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I dislike having to close this as "no consensus," but the early comments to speedily delete the article came before some sources were found and added, so I have discounted them. The nominator has disputed whether these new sources are enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, which is an argument that has merit. Unfortunately, no additional comments have been made in two weeks, so a clear consensus has not emerged. I do think the discussions here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raison d'être (band) (2nd nomination) to merge the two articles are good and can be pursued outside of AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Andersson (musician)

[edit]
Peter Andersson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Due to numerous aliases and associations with various names that are in fact themselves and "bands" that are made up of only the musician, notability is almost impossible to find. In keeping with the page Raison d'être (band) (also up for AfD), which lists only the BLP, both pages seem to be promotional in content. All sources are primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist: Having looked in a Swedish media archive, I'd argue the sourcing for this article is stronger than for Raison d'être. You've argued a weak keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raison d'être (band) (2nd nomination) and that this title should be redirected there, but since there's better sourcing for Peter Andersson (musician), I'd suggest Raison d'être (band) to be merged into this article instead. /Julle (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way is fine. We don't need both articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This should probably be taken into account both for this article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raison d'être (band) (2nd nomination). /Julle (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The point here is that editors are hurriedly struggling to find any scrap of mention or recognition in some sort of notable source to keep this BLP / Band at WP. Label releases from nearly two, three, four decades ago; an article from 2006. How many millions of musicians around the world get an article from time to time. Does this really make them notable for inclusion at WP? There was a time when a real notable musician needed something more than a 1000 word profile in a Swedish newspaper. Most of the BLPs CD releases are self-published with constantly changing label names that were created just for that CD. If the other Peter Andersson, who this Andersson produces and creates music with, does not have an article at WP, than why this one? With nearly 50 CD releases, where are the reviews? Where is the radio airplay for this musician? Criteria for notable inclusion. Last, nothing has been significantly contributed to this article in several years if not since its creation; only by an unregistered editor which obviously denotes COI. Maineartists (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maineartists: A little WP:AGF would help build the encyclopedia, please, whether we interpret the situation, or what is suitable encyclopedic content, differently or not. As the only editor who has argued for keeping this article so far, I've not hurriedly struggled to do anything. I've done what I do with a lot of articles which turn up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden: taken a quick look in a closed archive I've got access to, to see if there's anything we can do to find better sources than a normal WP:BEFORE would find. If you don't think what I've added (a couple of articles from regional newspapers focused on Andersson and his projects, and a passing mention in a third article) is enough according to Wikpedia policy, that's fair. Let's keep to that?
As for the other Andersson, well, they are two different persons with different careers. I'd assume that's the main reason. /Julle (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "other" Andersson is just as much a collaborator with this Andersson and his / their projects yet does not have notability enough for an article. I stand by my assessment. Adding (in your own words) "a couple of articles from regional newspapers focused on Andersson and his projects, and a passing mention in a third article" to justify "keep" is not what I would call an unhurried process for meeting notability criteria in either music, bands or musicians. It has nothing to do with assuming good faith. It has everything to do with finding RS that fulfill policy requirements at WP. Maineartists (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They run a side project together. The other Andersson has nothing to do with most of what the article subject has done. That's pretty central. /Julle (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could future comments address newly added references and whether they satisfy the general notability guidelines?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raison d'être (band)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Raison d'être (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a band. It is solely the musician Peter Andersson (musician) which is up for AfD. No notable labels associated. Both pages, due to numerous aliases and other associations that all lead back to original BLP, only cite primary sources. Not RS. It should have never passed first AfD. No reviews or significant coverage, radio airplay, etc. Fails criteria.

COMMENT I will say the same thing here as I said at the BLPs AfD: The point here is that editors are hurriedly struggling to find any scrap of mention or recognition in some sort of notable source to keep this BLP / Band at WP. Label releases from nearly two, three, four decades ago; an article from 2006 (nearly 20 years ago). How many millions of musicians / bands around the world get an article from time to time. Does this really make them notable for inclusion at WP? Is there any present day coverage? Most of the band's CD releases are self-published with constantly changing label names that were created just for that CD. With nearly 50 CD releases, where are the reviews? Where is the radio airplay for this band? Criteria for notable inclusion. Nothing has been significantly contributed to this article in several years if not since its creation. Maineartists (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maineartists: Please, the !votes here are one merge and one editor who initially argued for deletion and then changed their mind. That editors are "hurriedly struggling" is obviously not true. /Julle (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Changed their mind" a few hours later based on a primary source PDF of a single defunct record label, and one project that seems to be the only claim-to-fame that this musician is known for; rendering what can only be seen as a very, very weak defense for keep in both instances still reads as hurriedly. Maineartists (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bartolozzi

[edit]
Joe Bartolozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. In a WP:BEFORE search the best I could find was the short Indy100 article on a hoax about his supposed death last year. The rest is social media, an article in WP:THESUN about the same hoax [11], and sponsored content pieces like these: [12], [13], [14]. Wikishovel (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Trade Union Centre

[edit]
Socialist Trade Union Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Trade Union Congress (Bolshevik)

[edit]
United Trade Union Congress (Bolshevik) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, possibly Procedural Keep. Copy-pasting deletion rationale, and no indication of WP:BEFORE. UTUC(B) was a notable organization for a few years in early 2000s (a period from which we don't find a lot of online sources of regional news media online). Here is coverage on KMML issue [15], [16]. It should be noted that during RSP(B)'s heydays, it was very rare to see the name 'Bolshevik' written out in full (it was generally thought of as allusion to Baby John). See for example coverage like [17] --Soman (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Trade Union Congress (Marxist)

[edit]
United Trade Union Congress (Marxist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails criterias laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin City Motor Thozhilali Union

[edit]
Cochin City Motor Thozhilali Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails criterias laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and noting that there is an unbolded Keep opinion here so Soft Deletion is not a good option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College, Nawabshah

[edit]
Government Degree College, Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable educational institution. No independent, RS could be found that contain significant coverage of it. I am only able to find routine coverage with many passing mentions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Crewe

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
AFC Crewe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article. Per sources in article and what I could find, still fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame i'd have thought a bbc article aswell as the league its in having its own wikipedia page(a previously stated condition on the previous deletion) as well as multiple other teams in the same league having their own pages would have given it the merit you deemed warranted? Can you elaborate specifically on why AFC Crewe do not merit a page but say Lichfield City F.C. - Wikipedia do?
Thanks Iblethebible (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "What about article x?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Iblethebible (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iblethebible, you're what is known around here as a WP:Single-purpose account. That's not necessarily problematic, one has to start editing somewhere, and we edit what we think is interesting. But I'd like to ask, do you also have a WP:Conflict of interest regarding the article subject? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example the intralinks inside wiki with Gary Taylor-Fletcher - Wikipedia certainly give it more merit. He is an ex professional player at the highest level in England and is now a professional manager managing the team AFC Crewe Iblethebible (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 

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

Life origination beyond planets

[edit]

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)‎ 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Life origination beyond planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:FRINGE of the highest magnitude. I mean, come on, extraterrestrial life in stars? I may finish the deletion proposal right here... but, just in case, let's go on.

Life in the sun? A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere, such as in History of the extraterrestrial life debate, but only if placed in context (meaning, detailing the notions held at the time that allowed it, and the way they were eventually refuted), or contrasted with the actual knowledge we have of the sun that forbids such nonsense.

Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible... if a proposed arrangement of particles can actually exist, and if we change the definition of life. Neat. But what if we don't? What if we stick to our current definition of life (which is flexible enough already) and the chemistry that we know for sure exists? Then this is just bullshit, a sensationalist clickbait article... and according to their article, Science Alert is already known for sensationalism.

Life elsewhere. I can't check the source (I already passed the quota of free articles per month), but the way it is written, it seems as just an Argument from authority. Has Drake provided an idea of how or why life on neutron stars may be possible? Or was it just a hasty generalization or a wishful-thinking argument?

Not even the "In fiction" section is salvageable. Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples. And we follow the link, just 2 obscure novels (life on neutron star systems does not count, and neither does "Star-Trekking" around neutron stars). Even for TV Tropes that would not be enough. The idea of life on stars is so absurd that not even the suspension of disbelief required for works of fiction can cope with it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Much better than many of the articles I read on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call this article "fringe of the highest magnitude", but I would call it "fairly unbothered speculation". I mean, Frank (RIP) was fairly notorious for this kind of extrapolative excitement over the possibilities of life out there in the Universe, but unlike the actual fringe-y characteristics of certain present-day actors, he wasn't claiming empirical basis that was not actually there. This is akin to the rest of the speculation included in this piece. If it is a problem, it may be because it is WP:SYNTH rather than it being WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SYNTH means "to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If you see any of them, I am happy to rework the text. --Altenmann >talk 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is any indication that these examples were identified by third-parties as being relevant to each other, I'd like to see it. Preferably more than one source on identifying the compendium. jps (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a certain WP:SYNTH concern here. Has anyone pulled together these particular bits and pieces before? Are fictional speculations about sentient black holes really the same topic as ruminations from the 1700s about sunspots? XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In "Stellar Graveyards, Nucleosynthesis, and Why We Exist" Clifford A. Pickover does discuss the topic of various weird aplanetary lives in the universe. Other authors question the conventional wisdom that any plausible extraterrestrial form of life must resemble the life on Earth. I dont think that to cover a topic in general by "pullin together these particular bits and pieces" without drawing extra conclusions is SYNTH. And assigning "a bit" to the topic is just a common sense, I believe commonly used in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the chapter in The Stars of Heaven? Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Which of the examples does Pickover include in that chapter or is it just a recounting of the general critique that, really, the question of "life beyond Earth" is perhaps malformed? jps (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I got access to it due to a weird Google Books bug: it showed the content of Stars of Heaven instead of Shades of Freedom. The author had a multipage speculation on non-planetary life forms I mentioned in the article. He also discusses Dragon's Egg, ventures into metaphysical/religious musing on why God created life, about one in 10100 chance of life, and Cosmological Darwinism, and other cabbages and kings. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that what you describe is speaking to the topic of this article. It's a collection of novel, obscure, and even wacky astrobiological proposals, but it isn't "life origination beyond planets". jps (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep: the concept of Panspermia is also considered fringe science by some, but it still gets studies in astrobiology. I don't think we can completely rule this out, so it seems like a valid topic for an article given suitable sources. I'll also note that there is also a paper on the topic of life in a cool brown dwarf atmosphere, so technically not a planet either.[21] Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx for the dwarves; it turns out there was a wider discussion of this. I added a bit (three bits :-). --Altenmann >talk
  • Keep. I see enough independent coverage of the concept to meet WP:GNG. New York Times, Scientific American, Astronomy. I'm unfamiliar with many of the others to evaluate how reliable the others are, but it's possible that more of them add to GNG, and I haven't bothered to independently search for sources, feeling that there are already enough to meet GNG. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." (plus one more sentence which I don't think applies here). This isn't an article about a mainstream idea, so the second sentence applies, which I think is met, so I really don't see FRINGE as a reason to delete. From what I can see, the rest of the nominator's statement appears to be complaints about how the article is presented as well as a complaint about the validity of the concept itself. Yeah, I get that, and they are all valid points, but it's still not a reason to delete an article about what others have written on the subject. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftify per jps. Though covering a heavily speculative topic—as do pretty much all articles covering extraterrestrial life as well—this is still notable speculation with appreciable academic coverage, and FRINGE alone is usually not grounds for deletion. Of course, this article has multiple issues (possible SYNTH, organizational and prose issues, and scope issues), but these are also not grounds for deletion. ArkHyena (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think at the very least we need a new title for this article and a better identified scope. This might serve as a place to include the most speculative proposals about life in unusual contexts. Might I suggest something like "Life outside the habitable zone? which is perhaps a better framing? jps (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of the text about brown dwarfs is the extension of the traditional "habitable zone", not to say the title will be an oxymoron. In any case, article scope and title must be discussed in the article talk page, not here. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-planetary biogenesis. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether the life is on planets or something that is not a planet is largely a semantic game. The more interesting question is whether life can arise in environments that diverge substantially from Earth with its solid surface, liquid water, primarily stellar energy source, and protective atmosphere. A brown dwarf is just a wacky as life in the atmosphere of Jupiter from that perspective, and that's the real categorical. jps (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would certainly agree with Praemonitus's suggested title. Regarding the scope of this article, we can pretty solidly go by the geophysical definition of a planet, as the dynamical definition of a planet has little bearing on if an object is habitable beyond controlling elements like instellation or tidal heating.
      This would exclude "classical" planets, dwarf planets, planetary-mass moons, and sub-brown dwarfs. It would probably include brown dwarfs, however, alongside stars, stellar remnants, small minor planets, or other objects. ArkHyena (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The question for me is, why would we want to distinguish between life appearing on geophysically defined planets and as opposed to other contexts? What is the organizational principle or logic behind dividing into these two categories? Why would we include brown dwarfs but not giant moons? Getting hung up on whether the life is on planets or not is increasingly WP:OR argumentation as we try to isolate the topic. jps (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. It should also probably be pointed out that sourcing on hypothetical life on stars and stellar remnants is probably not broad or thorough enough for there to be an entirely separate article dedicated to it. There is appreciable coverage over the potential habitability of non-planetary asteroids (so excluding Ceres), and the possible role asteroids and comets may play in abiogenesis—as far as I can tell, there's no dedicated article for that form of non-planetary biology. However, this would be such a massive scope change it might as well be an entirely different article. ArkHyena (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as WP:SYNTH. This article is not yet ready for prime-time, and I'm not convinced that it is framed correctly. jps (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated; I believe there are none. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have not demonstrated that there is anyone who has written about "life origination beyond planets" as a topic. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Repeating: Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The conclusion this article makes is that all these ideas are related by being part of some overarching category of "life origination beyond planets". The sources do not make this synthetic claim. jps (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the article makes no such "synthetic conclusion", it merely reports on the subject stated by a descriptive title. --Altenmann >talk 01:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I write an article Novels where villains eat beets, there is an implied synthetic conclusion that such a topic has been the interest of some other source, and it isn't good enough that I can quote directly from the novels illustrating that everything is impeccably soured. Remember WP:TERTIARY and that Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections. We collect things that people have said are worthy of being collected. In this case, no one has declared these disparate ideas as worthy of being in a single article except for you... at least not that I have been able to find. jps (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think moving it into draft space is a good idea. Nobody will see it there, and the article surely can benefit from extra eyeballs. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The idea is for you to improve it and resubmit it to WP:AFC after you address the criticisms. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a bad idea. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There was no catastrophic criticisms which make the article critically bad. Draft space is for novices who do not know how to write articles. --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You and I have been around these parts to know that it has changed. Sure, there was a time back when you were writing articles fast and furiously when it was just get it all up on the site and let the collaboration take over. We have a responsibility as a top-10 website to not mislead our readers too badly. We cannot be perfect, but in this case I worry that we are presenting a novel interpretation that has not been validated.
      Anyway, I am happy to help you with the framing and trying to address the concerns over the topic being "invented".
      jps (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Red herring, strawman, barking at wrong fence, whats not. How in Universe my article is "to mislead our readers too badly"~ --Altenmann >talk 01:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have no source which distinguishes between "life origination on planets" and "life origination beyond planets". Thus, you are misleading readers into believing that such organization schema exist outside of Wikipedia. I take WP:NOR very seriously. I think the idea you have is fine for a blog or external publication. But until this idea takes root in the relevant sources as an entire topic, it strikes me as being completely arbitrary. jps (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article is not about Life beyond Earth. "Life beyond planets" does not return any sources similar to what you have presented. You are it, as far as I can tell! jps (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if the ideas themselves have merit or some modest acceptance, they must be still contrasted with the mainstream ideas (that's what FRINGE is about). And the mainstream idea is that life on stars (the Sun or others) is not possible, at all. The article does not mention that, at all. For starters, there's NASA: "The Sun could not harbor life as we know it because of its extreme temperatures and radiation. Yet life on Earth is only possible because of the Sun’s light and energy." Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is kinda why the true topic of the article is life as we don't know it (lol at that redirect). I agree that addressing these points of how unlikely life as we know it to be able to survive in hostile environments is an organizing principle with a lot of usable sources! jps (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you are implicitly assuming "life as we know it", while the article is about not it. --Altenmann >talk 02:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? I explicitly wrote "life as we don't know it"? jps (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect you used is an "easter egg" linking to Hypothetical types of biochemistry, which is still "life as we know it" only slightly different. --Altenmann >talk 16:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that page does already have a section on Nonplanetary life, which includes speculation about neutron stars. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By your logic the section Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Nonplanetary_life must be deleted as WP:SYNTH because google say nothing about "nonplanetary life". --Altenmann >talk 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about Google (and I would in fact advise everyone to treat them as untrustworthy). Maybe that section does need to be cut, or heavily revised, but we're not here to debate that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I... don't know what to say here exactly. I guess I shouldn't have put in the wikilink? My point is that the topic is something other than "Life origination beyond planets". It's more "life as we don't know it". Okay? jps (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if extraterrestrial life is speculative, any speculation must be based on things we do know, that's the way science works. Astrobiology usually considers "Life as we know it" because it is a known example of life that actually works. Ideas about "Life as we don't know it" are not usually taken very seriously outside of pop science pages in need of a clickbait, because it would not be enough to point that an aspect of life may be replicated in a context that wouldn't allow life, such as the surface of stars: they would need to explain how the proposed idea can meet all the requisites we would expect from a lifeform. Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. This is the most straightforward criticism of these proposals and absolutely deserves to be frontloaded in any future article that deals with these subjects. An interesting aside is given by those like of David Kipping who points out the lamppost reasoning that necessarily is invoked when making this point. But it's also nearly impossible to decide what is or isn't plausible when fumbling around in the dark. Suffice to say, there are often a few lines here, a page or two there, about these kinds of speculations in secondary sources trying to summarize astrobiology as an emerging discipline. jps (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point about frontloading. How about that some of the content may be merged into Hypothetical types of biochemistry, section "Nonplanatary life"? This article has plenty of frontloading and appears to be overlapping in subject with mine? --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely help work on that other article, but I think you have made good points that this other article cannot contain the entirety of what is possible to write about this subject. It is, after all, limited to discussions of biochemistry and there are some hyperbolic speculations about processes (as on neutron stars) which are barely recognizable as "chemical". jps (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I remain unconvinced that there is a well-defined, recognized-in-this-form-by-prior-sources topic here. Assembling bits and pieces of speculation under a common heading advances the idea that all the pieces so assembled really are parts of the same thing. Whether that is legitimate here is unclear. The current text is overly dependent upon primary sources and pop-science media. All things told, it reads more like a blog post or a 2004-era Wikipedia article than what we need now. (The title is also awkward.) So, let's incubate it for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article has lots of problems but the topic exists and has been discussed in sources. I agree WP:FRINGE does not apply here; I squint some possible WP:SYNTHESIS issues but they are not a reason to delete. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: nomination without merit; has been discussed in sources. Skyerise (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify is the most WP:PAG-based reasoning I saw while reading all the comments here. This definitely is not a straight keep. There are clear synth issues, and XOR'easter caught what I found too with primary sources and pop-science being used to a degree they should not. Some is just speculation that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and others are either old or just primary journal articles on concepts that haven't gotten traction in the scientific community. Draftifying would at least give it a chance for cleanup so that it could be reassessed later if there are any decent secondary scientific sources out there or possible title changes that would help focus the scope. I do think thre is some weight to Bearian's TNT comment, but draftifying threads the needle much better for policy and guideline issues right now. KoA (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname 莉)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Li (surname 莉) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable surname (no notable individual with this surname); material can be merged into List of surnames romanized Li. We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 02:35, 13 August 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 04:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Happy to second deletion for this one out of this lot of Li (surname x) articles, since there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep this and there is no sourced info to merge into List of surnames romanized Li. A redirect would be fine, I guess, but why? I don't think anyone's going to be searching for "Li (surname 莉)". -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname 理)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Li (surname 理) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable surname (no notable individual with this surname); material can be merged into List of surnames romanized Li. We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything here worth merging, since Folk etymologies of Chinese surnames and Surnames in Chinese mythology are both redlinks. I don't have access to any complete biographical dictionaries of Chinese historical figures anymore, but it's telling that the Kangxi entry for 理 as a surname lists only the single individual 理徵, who seems to have been invented or repurposed to make sense of a bit of the Yellow Emperor myth where somehow he was the ultimate progenitor of a dozen different surnames.
    The phenomenon of earlyish Chinese families backdating their surnames to mythological and legendary figures to bolster their own reputations — that's an interesting subject and probably deserves better coverage than we currently give it, but just uncritically repeating myths and folk etymologies without contextualising them as such is not what we should be doing here. I'm landing at delete, but also copypaste sourcing to zh:理姓 (unsourced). Folly Mox (talk) 08:39, 13 August 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 04:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A clear consensus to Keep this article. But please remember to remain civil in deletion discussions, both towards other participants and towards the nominator (and your poor closer). We all have the same goal, having the best content on Wikipedia, we just differ on the interpretation of what articles qualify for that. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeForU

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
BeForU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An old article that fails a "before" test.

I probably would've nominated this for PROD if it hadn't gone through an AfD over 14 years ago, shortly after the band disbanded. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lullabying and Dekimasu. Also, agree with Nihonjoe re: previous discussion. DCsansei (talk) 16:01, 1 September 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 03:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Chol (footballer)

[edit]
Yun Chol (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1992 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yong-nam

[edit]
Oh Yong-nam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lâm (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. A good discussion on both sides, but I give more weight to the arguments that point out that sources discuss MPs who have lost their seats, satisfying WP:NLIST. Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs who lost their seat in the 2024 United Kingdom general election

[edit]
List of MPs who lost their seat in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely sourced to primary results, no evidence of WP:NLIST being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do have the news talking about the MPs who lost their seats: [22]. At the very least, "a record number of Conservatives lost their seats" in this election is well documented by sources and notable: [23][24]. There's also specific coverage over MPs from other parties, including Labour & SNP: [25][26][27]. We also have coverage for specific regions: [28][29]. Therefore I feel these should be enough to be considered a pass, since I don't think it's reasonable for us to expect sources to cover every single one of the candidates that lost to make it count for notability. S5A-0043Talk 10:48, 1 September 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 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ufa center

[edit]
Ufa center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to find sources neither in english nor russian. Tagged unreferenced since 2019 Appears to be machine translated from Bashkir Wikipedia, where there are no refs either. --Altenmann >talk 01:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not seem it can be verified to exist Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep from editors who argue that sources are sufficient to establish notability.

As an aside, this is an unusual closure for these type of "candidate" articles which are typically not deleted but are redirected to the district section of the state election page for the upcoming election. But there are a large number of editors arguing for Keep, even disregarding the IP who was quick with the insults so I'm closing this discussion as Keep. I recommend any articles that were brought up in this discussion as references be added to the article if they aren't already so the article doesn't make a return trip for a second AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shomari Figures

[edit]
Shomari Figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable congressional candidate. Figures is likely to win, but he doesn't currently seem notable based on his current news coverage, which is almost entirely campaign-related and/or passing mentions. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama#District 2, and obviously this page can be recreated if/when he wins. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd say him speaking at the DNC now makes him notable, even if he weren't to win. Slamforeman (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this. 174.83.134.221 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, even split between those arguing for a Redirect and those who believe existing sources establish GNG. A source review might help here as no one has talked specifically about which sources establish notability. And I don't think speaking at a convention (hundreds did during those 4 days) is enough to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough for GNG from looking at the article, the first part of WP:BLP1E is met but the second part doesn't apply. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia: "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."
Searching for news articles via Google News[30], scores of articles are featured – including a statement made by the NRCC itself about his DNC speech. He is running in one of the most competitive seats in the country, during an election cycle where the partisan majority of the U.S. House is up in the air. His status as a competitive candidate in a competitive election has generated significant coverage for Shomari Figures.
Not related to the DNC, here are some articles that cover Shomari "significantly": POLITICO NYT CNN Capital B
These aren't just menial election updates, these are in-depth profiles/coverage on the candidate. I believe these articles prove Shomari Figures is suitable for a stand-alone article because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of [Figures's campaign].
Additionally – some say that the second part of WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to Figures – but I would argue it does. In order to be considered low-profile, the individual's coverage in sources "without seeking such attention". Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. The definition for a high-profile fits Figures much better: "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program...Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances... and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee."
Like others, I don't really see the point in deleting or relisting the article based off of notability, regardless if the page is going to be redone in 70~ days. Katieeatsrocks (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think him being a DNC speaker and the coverage for the VRA district makes it hard to delete this just to resurrect a few months later when he very likely does win according to all election forecasters ShortlegPenins (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG- not worth deleting it just to rewrite in November Microplastic Consumer (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Speaking at a political event is rather routine for politicians running for election. This person doesn't seem to have a notable career otherwise, so I don't see notability. White House liaison and field coordinator are rather low-level political jobs; this person is someone involved in politics, but working on the campaign of others. Just not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of fictional radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reasons List of fictional television stations was deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Again, no indication of LISTN or any encompassing notability of the subjects as a group, and the list itself is a largely indiscriminate selection of subjects. No need for this list to exist, and it's better off deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came extremely close to AfDing this myself (I actually made the edit that added an AfD tag, and then changed my mind while composing the rationale). I don't think this is quite as bad as the television station one was, since there are at least two sources making a pretense of discussing the topic of fictional radio stations collectively. But one of them is no longer accessible and the other seems to be some random person's blog, so I guess it fails to hold up to closer scrutiny. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Doesn't pass WP:LISTN or WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Irish first-class cricketers. I don't see how content could be Merged as the list article is in the form of a table but it remains a possibility. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Murphy

[edit]
Desmond Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't normally create articles for players playing just 1 first class match. Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The worst case situation here is a redirect to List of Irish first-class cricketers, with a partial merge to a note so that the biographical details and references can be preserved. Given the quality of information at this source the chances are that there are contemporary press records offline that could be used to build a proper biography. Liddle appears to be the go to expert on Irish cricketers and clearly wrote for the ACS on the subject - a set of his biographies can be found here for future reference. It might be worth a keep based on Liddle's biography and the fact that he got a Wisden obituary (which is not a gimme, especially for single appearance players), but I'd rather see something a bit more contemporary in news sources. But it really is redirect at the worst - this is never a delete situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus, we have editors arguing to Keep, Delete, Redirect and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current heads of state of states with limited recognition

[edit]
List of current heads of state of states with limited recognition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is it accurate to consider countries like China and Israel as partially recognized states? Are there any sources that list the leaders of these countries in a table format? If not, the article's theme seems to be defining arbitrarily according to the author's own understanding. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the deletion. This list is included in other articles, including the source material of "List of current state leaders by assumption date of office". As the original author of this page, I nominate this page for speedy deletion, because after almost a decade, the page is within the same range of validity as it originally was and the content is easily disputed such as the inclusion of Israeli president. Gag0409 (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see NLIST being made and this almost feels like a coatrack to say certain countries that are well recognised have 'limited recognition'. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which Medical Device

[edit]
Which Medical Device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I almost tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_August_27&oldid=1243894403"