Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 13	June 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Martiniturbide (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC) You evil wikipedians like to delete things, like to delete knowledge. It is so easy just to delete instead of research and improve the articles. That is why nobody loves you.[reply]

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. Delete, then create fresh redirect that cannot simply be reverted to previously deleted article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Lives (Def Leppard song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Def Leppard song). Recreated but with no indication of passing WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything to establish notability. John B123 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. John B123 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt: article has been recreated and re-redirected numerous times since that first AfD, including once less than a month after the AfD. Clearly, Martiniturbide disagrees with that result as they've been the one restoring the article every time (and they have a statement here expressing as much), but everything that was said in 2009 still holds true, as does everything said in this nomination. Given their history, it seems safe to assume Martiniturbide wouldn't cease their activity even with a renewed consensus, so I supporting salting to prevent further disruption. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true". Martiniturbide (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown how it passes any of the criteria for WP:NSONG, nor do any of the sources in the article pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific criteria? For me it covers the criteria. The page you link says "..may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria".

non-trivial: It is a non-trivial Def Leppard song since it is the first time the band records a duet in a studio record. Also Tim McGraw is a well recognized American country singer. Martiniturbide (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its their first duet doesn't automatically make it notable, and neither does the fact it features another notable singer. It's simply your assumption that it being a duet makes it non-trivial. You haven't shown that there is anything else to say about this song apart from those two facts. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect(/partial merge): Does not currently meet WP:NSONG, though if I squint there might -- might -- be sufficient review coverage out there for a weak keep given it was a single ~~with a couple of minor~~but without any significant chartings but that'd require source reliability analysis (ie: do the review sources have a clearly identifiable editorial and independent review policy and staffing), digging behind paywalls, and tracking down dead links which I'm not going to do (ie: WP:HEY away). There's occasional 1-2 line qualitative coverage, but is there anything in depth of this particular song? Tim McGraw's guesting is already in the album article. Other highlighted claims to noteworthiness can be included in that paragraph, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to album is standard practice for songs which don't warrant a full article - see rcat {{r from song}}. The redirections by SummerPhDv2.0 and Rosguill should also be considered as !votes for that outcome. I don't see that deltetion/recreation/SALT/protection is currently needed as a thin 2009 AFD is not incredibly determinative in 2024 for an article that was in existence for over a decade (no, Martiniturbide shouldn't have recreated it a few months after the AFD, but the time for enforcement was 15 years back), this AFD will clearly provide a more solid set of rationales/consensus, there's not a range of editors/ips edit warring/socking on the creation side, and the recent edit war is not ideal but WP:BRD or AFD should probably have been applied earlier. Retention of edit history with reference to this AFD is also easier for demonstrating that this title should remain a redirect. One would hope that there wouldn't be a deficient article recreation but if there does happen to be, then that's likely still not a case for SALT at that point, but a behavioural problem for WP:ANI. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything suggesting WP:NSONG either. I agree WP:SALT would be helpful. If anything turns up that establishes notability better, let it go through WP:AfC. StereoFolic (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago López (soccer, born 2005)

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

Lacks notability, SIGCOV issues EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Mexico. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article seems to have enough WP:SIGCOV. These two sources have in-depth coverage [1], [2] I also found this one: [3]. Svartner (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject easily meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Easy keep. Easily meets WP:SIGCOV per Svartner's post above and those found in the article itself. Anwegmann (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV. ADifferentMan (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG. I suggest this is a POINTy nomination, given the OP's behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matias Fernandez-Pardo shortly before this nomination. Giant Snowman 09:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV already in the article to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when an article is already well sourced like this, I would expect a source analysis with a clear explanation as to why each source doesn't satisfy SIGCOV requirements if wishing to pursue deletion. The ones highlighted by Svartner look good enough to me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 15 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erddy Titaley

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

This is a poorly sourced BLP and I can't find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find were squad listings in Bola and Indosport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Absolutely nothing of substance here, much less WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. There is no information available about him at all. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:04, 16 June 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!} 02:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NeDi

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is written like an advertisement and is not worth keeping in my opinion. This article also doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. A previous discussion was had about deleting this article and no action despite a delete consensus. Garsh (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was deleted in 2008 but re-created. Sourcing amounts to two blog articles and a forum post... doesn't sufficient to establish notability. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The InfoWorld and CIO Magazine sources are not blogs, but they are the same article that also appears to have been published on ComputerWorld. (They share the same publisher and thus are not independent of each other.) I see a few WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in scholarly publications but no additional WP:SIGCOV beyond the IW/CW/CIO source to get to WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 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. Deletion rationale should be more specific on which notability guideline the nominator believes this article subject fails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Webb

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin. I would like ask please that if by chance the consensus leans towards deletion, we look at redirecting the page to Ivor Kirchin, Basil Kirchin as he was a member of The Kirchin Band for a year, having replaced the featured singer Rory Blackwell in 1957. Webb stayed with the band for a year and I believe sang on at least two recordings. He was involved with both Ivor and Basil. This would also preserve the history. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a couple of good articles in the The British Newspaper archive. Unfortunately its pay so you can read thing. There's also this article with his picture below,
Disc, No. 67 Week ending May 16, 1959 - Page 7 THE BLACKSMITH WHO PREFERRED BEAT TO THE ANVIL CHORUS, Big break
I haven't got time to comb through the other UK music trade magazines and a lot of the earlier ones can't be word searched. So it's a case of having to go through all the content of this often faded but thankfully preserved historical music info.
I'm satisfied to call this a keep. Karl Twist (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable newspaper coverage as referenced in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please add newly located sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoers Beware!

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

Non notable album with only one reference. Was about to BLAR it, but would be challenged. PROD would also be challenged too. No sources I can find online. Toadette^Edit! 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mustard Plug: Found a handful of zines, but nothing reliable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in [4] Ox Fanzine (German printed magazine), Visions (German printed magazine), Skin Up (German zine), [5] Sputnik Music (marked as staff review), Punknews.org, [6] Allmusic (short). And these are only the ones that have survived online for a 1997 album. Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources Geschichte found. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 14 June 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!} 02:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg

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

Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.

Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the 10 year test it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.

As a result I believe this should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be a tongue in cheek idea that never happened. It's subjects are certainly notable but the non-fight isn't— Iadmc ♫^talk 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be mostly celebrity nonsense. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I might rename this article, but this is pop history at this point. The fight never happened, but the "celebrity feud" was a thing for almost two years. This is about as important as the White Bronco chase a generation ago, but it's a thing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I think it's rather perverse to compare a non-event media spat to events surrounding a double-murder, your argument is actively in favour of delete given that the White Bronco chase isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was no murder conviction, only a car chase, was my point. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Too soon to delete as Musk recently revived discussion about it. Weakipedist (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Right now, it's worthy of a brief mention on the subjects' pages, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think it may be worthy of brief mention on the subjects' pages. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep71. RECENTISM, CRYSTALBALL, all those apply, and clearly this is better suited as a redirect to ERB. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. With respect to the revived discussion, it may be notable in the future (see WP:DEGRADE) but as for right now, WP:CRYSTAL says we can't keep just for the sake of potential notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This "rivalry" is much more fueled by imagination and virtual culture than something real. Nothing that supports encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 12:47, 20 June 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!} 23:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devora Radeva

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSKATE --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:22, 16 June 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!} 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Language School, Dubai

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Dubai, and cannot find references to add. The only existing reference in the article is to the school's website. The school's names make it difficult to search for, but if there is WP:SIGCOV it ought to be findable. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Tacyarg (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references that appeared in two English-language newspapers published in Dubai. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing seems improved. Searching for its former names I see some further potential sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get another opinion about sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 14 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huseyn Mursalov

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

Soccerway stub with no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. My own searches yielded only Fanat and Sportnet, both of which are mere squad list mentions that do nothing to suggest that Mursalov is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per nom. Can't find anything here. Anwegmann (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be a lack of coverage about this footballer in reliable, published sources. Waqar💬 20:24, 15 June 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!} 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Training Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:Before via newspaper and library search shows no independent sources covering the center itself in depth. All current sources are from the organization that runs it or a conference listing. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the reasons outlined by spryde.
Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 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!} 21:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JP Lewis

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 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!} 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JR Esterhuizen

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this piece on his apparent career switch. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byrd

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

Newer article created in March 2024; sourced ok enough, but the information doesn't seem to be related to the subject very much. I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I think it is best to delete this article. Johnmarkdyer (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. And I removed massive sections, seconding Lindsey40186's concern. - Altenmann >talk 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above editors. This appears to be an easy call to delete, even after the initial edit and cleanup. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main category for this one would be nauthor, but the books do not seem to have had a wide audience (e.g. listed as #30K in the religious and spiritual category on Amazon, #300K in Christianity). One book seems to have an independent publisher ("Destiny Image") but the other (2 volume) seems to be published by the organization Fire and Fragrance which he is associated with. Lamona (talk) 19:55, 17 June 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 and the existenc of List of heaviest people article is evidence that there is notability to those people demonstrating this condition which is documented by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

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

Not notable, see WP:BLP1E 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Saudi Arabia. 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this should be deleted under BLP1E. While BLP1E conditions 1 and 2 apply, condition 3 does not seem to be met. The event was significant, and the individual's role was both substantial and well-documented. See WP:What BLP1E is not. Manyyassin (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A totally unusual record. Scheridon (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept as articles for other record setting individuals still exist and arent being deleted

I refer you to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_people Most of those people still have articles that arent being deleted 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact khalid weighed as much as he did and lost all of that weight makes him notible since he did the impossible 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 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!} 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Recopa Catarinense

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

Article from an edition of a minor competition in Brazilian football, created more than a year in advance before the event took place. It has questionable WP:GNG and completely fails in WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Brazil, and Sportspeople. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strange article, it says it has already been played even though it's in the future! Giant Snowman 19:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 June 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. Notability is not a judgment about importance or whether a subject is "real" but whether there are reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage (not passing mentions) of the article subject which doesn't seem to exist yet. It might be TOOSOON for this political movement so I'm hesitant to Salt this page with Full protection. I don't see a consensus to redirect although an editor can choose to do this. There is already an existing redirect at Foundational Black American. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational Black Americans

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

Seems to be heavy on Copy Vios, and may well mirror black Amercians. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of a distinction between Black American and the "Foundational Black American" lineage which seems to more attached to a leader, community and quasi-movement along with its ethnic group emphasis. This distinction seems to be elaborated on in the Terminology section about its origins. Fba-warrior (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which can be said with "Whilst black American cultural leaders are sometimes called "Foundational Black Americans"". Does it need its own article? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately, because there are some black Americans who do not identify as a Foundational Black American and others who do. This is also a fairly new phenomenon that seems to becoming more popular, as many Black Americans do not know of this new "identity". There are some who consider the FBAs to be a movement or a cult. Fba-warrior (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So both wp:recentism and wp:not may come into play here? Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression. I don't think it's caught on in an academic sense either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of academic validity has been certified more in the clarity of qualifications of what an FBA is and additionally a statement of "ethnic purpose" later expounded on in the subsections which further deviates from what was mentioned in the African American/Black American wiki pages. While those have been hyper-linked to the FBA page, the Foundational Black American page takes you to a community within a community bio, so to speak. However, labeling it a sub-community is a bit of misnomer. These are the same people with a uniquely different life scope and acknowledged identity. Fba-warrior (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert back to redirect Content fork from Tariq Nasheed, which this page used to redirect to. Don't see justification for a separate page. I also removed, as is required, most of the copyright violations and asked for revdel. Did not check rest of article for close paraphrasing or other copyvios — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (WP:TNT), even if there is a notable topic in there writing it would involve removing basically everything currently there... We seem to have a lot of OR with the reliable sources for the most part not actually discussing the concept... For example the Coates piece does not mention Foundational Black Americans, it says that the enslavement of black Americans is foundational to American history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my issue, some strange SYNTH going on, when the source talks about in one way and it's being used here in another. Not that this isn't a valid topic for an article, we just don't have enough RS to build upon. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notable concept as it were also largely overlaps with American Descendants of Slavery, I am not an expert in the area though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that article that is properly sourced ties specifically to Foundational Black Americans other than the flag and the term. Even the flag is not sourced, though I expect there to be some acceptable source for it somewhere. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe Regarding the flag, we can't say things such as "Foundational Black Americans usually have a unique flag ..." Where is any evidence for this? How could there be evidence when most people who might meet the definition have almost certainly never heard of the term of the flag. Note that there several websites associated with the term, all of which seem to be selling something. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term and flag are both pretty self-explanatory as you have numerous visual of individuals wearing the term and holding the flag at the annual Foundational Black American conferences and rallies. There have been multiple registered events under the branding of this name alias. The online community also shows evidence of some kind of cyber allegiance on twitter/x, youtube, instagram. facebooks, etc. which is typical of some of these groups start in the social media age. Also, this term has been used by other news media outlets, most specifically "African News Diaspora", formerly run MSNBC show Tiffany Cross, and "Unfiltered with Roland Martin." Fba-warrior (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fba-warrior How many FBAs do you think there are? What % have the flage? Doug Weller talk 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. that ones kind of a tough one. I would say that there is anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000 people who identify as FBA. Maybe 10% owns the flag. 1 out of every 10 ppl. But im just guestimating. Do we have number on how many Amerians own an american flag? Seems like that data would be hard to come up with Fba-warrior (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based off event turn out, there is usually range between 4000 - 5000 people that show up to each of its events, showing, conferences, etc. Fba-warrior (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Descendants of Slavery is a movement and terminology founded and used by Yvetter Carnell, if I am not mistaken. There is seemingly some overlap due to these people all being from similar histories and lineages but the Foundational Black American identity is a bit more distinct. The differences would be I assume the loyalty of group base to which founder's philosophies and personalities. One being loyal to Tariq Nasheed and his push for reparations through an online campaign and independent political process. The other being an actual grassroots organization that was registered in Chicago I believe and had a meeting building

. Fba-warrior (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theres numerous articles btw on the difference between FBA and ADOS. Heres one for example, maybe this needs to be explained on the fba page

https://dwomowale.medium.com/why-pan-africanism-matters-lessons-from-ados-vs-fba-c643223b5672 Fba-warrior (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium isn't a reliable source, see WP:RSNP. That blog in fact says " Tariq decided to use Foundational Black American (FBA) and then began using FBA interchangeably with ADOS, which created a lot of confusion." If that's right, then it doesn't explain the difference except for the agreement between Nasheed and ADOS. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Newsone doesn't strike me as a RS, rest are name drops... This can easily be handled in the article about African Americans. I don't see much for sourcing beyond their website. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I took newsone to RSN May last year for its use in the earlier version of this article.[7]. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is mostly used in regards to Covid 19 and vaccines [8] in the Black population, which is another idea, distinct from this one. There could be an article there, but using these sources here doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a term used by scholars, and a few modern references and usages do not add up to the claim made in the opening sentence. Delete. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect, No precise RS, and this term doesn't seem notable in itself. No need for this to have its own page. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tariq Nasheed#Views and reception and then protect it. Deleting will only result in someone re-creating it, and then we'll be right back here for the third time. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its a unique ethnic phenomenon. seems to be transpiring among African Americans. I noticed some of the origins are when they discuss their African heritage, “what allegiance do they have with the US”. more seem to be identifying with the term. The first time I heard it was on Twitter when a black person said “Obama didn’t fight for foundational black Americans because his dad’s from Kenya!” Strange! I thought, what does that have to do with anything??

I decided to look up the term and found “FBA” on urban dictionary with similar definition as the one on this page and I also found this article. apparently this is a huge conversation being had among them, like an ethnogenesis of some sort!

https://www.fashionghana.com/site/fba-foundational-black-americans/ Phil Whidwick (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Whidwick This is your first edit which means two things - you found out about this off wiki or by email and you don't know our policies. That website says "FashionGHANA.com; African Fashion Magazine, Blog ..." certainly an unsigned article in a fashion magazine can't be used as a source. And the Urban Dictionary is user generated and not a reliable source any more than WIkipedia is.Doug Weller talk 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug. I searched online & found the page a couple of days. Was disappointed it’s up for deletion? as I was tryi kg to figure out more about this group. Thought I’d add my two cents Phil Whidwick (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also don’t you seem to be having a bit of a bias? It’s like you just said urban dictionary is just like here on wiki, a bunch of people writing based on their sources and evidence found. Phil Whidwick (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article on this ethnogenesis group for sure. Thank you for your time :) Phil Whidwick (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And copious OR. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salt title, delete and restore old redirect this has too many dubious sources and OR to be a viable article. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup article}} a couple references should be better cited and certain sections in the article need to be elaborated on more and tied back to original topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smearface Researcher (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this topic is REAL. article just needs extensive cleanup in certain areas. Ive heard this referred to as a hate group before and in other instances just another movement colored minorites/POC gravitate towards.Either way definitely needs to be exposed and/or relevant information on it. I will help with some of the corrections if necessary Smearface Researcher (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Smearface Researcher (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel at this point some people need to read wp:canvassing and wp:consensus it is not a vote where the most votes win, it is based on policy-based arguments, so having one-day accounts fetch up here to "VOTE" will not change the result, the closer will base it on the strength of the arguments, not their number. Also please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you took the liberty to message personally about the policy but seeing some of your responses here and to the message you sent me please respect WP:FAITH and WP:HA Wikipedia's policy on harassment and good faith. and also WP:DONTBITE just because the editors are new does not mean they don't have something insightful to add Smearface Researcher (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, please read wp:indent it was not indented as a personal reply to you, but as a general notice to anyone else who might fetch up here. Also how am I harrasing you, I have posted on your talk page (and (very arguably) here, this is not harassment. Harresment is following you to multiple pages to attack your edits, I have not done so (the only two others you have edited) Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also informing you of how things work here is not bitting you, it it telling you how we do things. Which (as it was not a reply to you anyway) I did not do. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smearface Researcher You aren't saying you are new, right? Doug Weller talk 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller no. I have a new account. had to make a new account after a long hiatus Smearface Researcher (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT this article also probably needs mentioning of Claude Anderson. since apparently that's the guy tyreek Nashed stole his movement from

Claud Anderson (no e} is mentioned in Black Capitalism which discusses his two self-published books, eg "Black Labor, White Wealth: The Search for Power and Economic Justice" on Amazon.co.uk{link was blocked by a filter). That article needs work.

His Instagram page also lead me to foundationalblackamericans1526 [9] who has self-published some weird books, eg "Black people in the Americas before Columbus (Scholars and Explorers who admitted there were Indigenous Black people in the Americas Series)"[10] and this one that mentions FBAs[11]. Also to [12] I don't k now why people spell his name Claud and link material spelling it Claude. All so weird. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt - This page confuses two things. The FBA is a non notable attempt at creating a race based American political movement using fringe history. The page then pretends to be about Black Americans in general. It isn't. 12.75.41.47 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a bit strange as I was under the impression it was spelled with e. Either way I think its worth mentioning the guy got his movement from him. I found this one [13] even he said it himself Smearface Researcher (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smearface Researcher X isn't a reliable source. I'm not sure I've seen any reliably published sources about this. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is fringe about the history they claim? You can't just make a big statement like that and not explain it. Also, "pretends to be about Black Americans"?? That makes no sense Fba-warrior (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"in general". It isn't about all descendants of slavery, it's about people, number not known, who call themselves FBAs. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this group is no different than any other ethnic identifier/political movement. I haven't seen not one good argument for taking this page down except for User:Doug Weller talk about the reliable sources, which CAN BE FIXED! There is enough evidence and people that identify with this group that there should be more information presented on this. they can as easily just be categorized as ethnic party or an ethnic club tbh. Still enough to warrant a wiki page on it. I stand on keeping this page alive but having a serious talk on how to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fba-warrior (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gayali

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

Played in 5 matches about 6 years ago but hasn't been since. No sign of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best sources found were a goalscorer listing in Sportal, a transfer announcement based on a social media post in Offside Plus and a squad listing in Redaktor. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. I couldn't find anything of substance on this player. Seems not to have played in four years...Anwegmann (talk) 20:03, 14 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatim Kamal

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

Played 51 mins at professional level but no significant coverage cited so no WP:GNG pass looks likely. I found a brief quote in Al-Sharq and an injury announcement in Kooora but neither of these are enough for GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Very little here to judge. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:01, 14 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abduraouf Hussain

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

He played 206 mins of professional football but I'm just not seeing enough for a WP:GNG pass. No significant coverage found in an Arabic search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Nothing here. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG by miles. Anwegmann (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matias Fernandez-Pardo

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

Association football player who does not satisfy general notability, and does not satisfy football notability criteria because those redirect to basic sports notability which redirects to general notability. This is a contested draftification. There are three references. The first of them is a database entry which shows that he plays association football. The second and third are articles in Dutch, which, on machine translation, are about the team, and not about him.

Table replaced below. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Soccerway	A database entry	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	https://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/live/voetbal/347570	In Dutch. On machine translation, about the team.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
3	onefootball.com/en/news/duitse-landskampioen-komt-speler-ophalen-bij-kaa-gent-39623474	This article, on translation, is not about the player but about the team	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

Draftify as nominator. There may be significant coverage in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belgium. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is manipulation on your part. The third source mentions the player by name that he is the focus of attention of the Bundesliga champion! Then this is laziness on your part as well, and you know that he plays in the Belgian Pro League, which is a professional league. Meaning that the article can be expanded and easily achieves notability. --EpicAdventurer (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Where in the 2024 guidelines is there a guideline about presumed notability based on playing in a professional league? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He scored 8 goals for God's sake in the 8th best European league!!! EpicAdventurer (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  EpicAdventurer: There needs to be WP:SIGCOV. Goals and appearances, unless in specific situations of WP:BIAS, don't count toward WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you speaking honestly? What makes football players gain fame and value if not goals and appearances? EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @EpicAdventurer: Yes, I am, and so is everyone else. Significant coverage in reliable media sources (again, defined at WP:SIGCOV) adds fame and value, as it were, to a footballer's notability. I admit that it's surprising, but this player lacks that significant coverage. I know this is frustrating to you, but it's the only way to make sure that Wikipedia isn't filled with random articles of footballers who lack notability enough to receive full coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You contradict yourself and make readers laugh at these illogical responses. The player plays in the 8th highest-ranked league in UEFA and is active in the Belgian U-19 national team. In addition, I found many sources that directly refer to him. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @EpicAdventurer: Watch out for WP:PA, please. Anwegmann (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 8 goals in 16 Belgian Pro League appearances is very impressive. Wikipedia's notability policy requires WP:SIGCOV, EpicAdventurer. You'd expect lots of good newspaper coverage for such a player. But so far, there doesn't seem to be any. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are passing mentions of the subject in sources 2 and 3. I am correcting the source analysis.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Soccerway	A database entry	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	https://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/live/voetbal/347570	In Dutch. On machine translation, about the team. Passing mention of player.	Yes	No (passing mention)	Yes	Yes
3	onefootball.com/en/news/duitse-landskampioen-komt-speler-ophalen-bij-kaa-gent-39623474	This article, on translation, is not about the player but about the team. Passing mention of player.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fed up with this "encyclopedia". It has turned into a authoritarian community not a cooperative one. EpicAdventurer (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find some good, detailed sources and we will reconsider. Giant Snowman 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the player tends to earn enough WP:GNG in the 2024/25 season, I see good faith in its creation and imagine that the article will not be deleted, making it draft will allow more sources to be added. Svartner (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about opinion, even though I understand that decisions on AfDs can be very frustrating at times. It's about whether or not there are valid sources enough to fulfill Wikipedia standards. I understand how you feel, to a degree, but you should not give up on this project. Anwegmann (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EpicAdventurer, I think policies and rules established by a community of editors that apply to every article and editor are the opposite of authoritarianism? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now what do you want? Have you seen the state of the article or are we only seeing what we want? EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's okay. But we need WP:SIGCOV to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incapacitating and a trivialization of the editors' efforts, and nothing good will come of it. How many sources should I get for you? EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE, sources ideally Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pity the miserable state of Wikipedia EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify—I'm tempted to vote keep, as he has performed at the first team level regularly enough to justify it, but I think draftifying is the best option, as this comes across as WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised how little coverage there was about a player like this... Giant Snowman 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same, honestly. Anwegmann (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you respond to the replies and evaluate the article based on its current status? How do you rate? Do you understand what you are doing? EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If this is the best sourcing available on this footballer, then the subject fails GNG for the time being. Footballers do not get a free pass for playing in a specific league. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some promising stuff, not surprising for a player who has made his breakthrough in a relatively big team and league. Unfortunately, all Belgian (reliable) media are paywalled. These look like profiles, albeit written by the same person: [14] [15]. These looks like assessments of skill based on particular games (not match reports): [16] [17] Can we get some more eyes on these, maybe some who can break through the paywall? Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is an interview with little secondary info, and what's there is just summarizing what he's quoted saying: Until last weekend, Matias Fernandez-Pardo only kicked off an official match once for the Buffaloes. [press conference quote from subject about his previous experience] Before the match in Liège, Fernandez-Pardo only counted fifteen minutes in the top first division this season. In January he seemed to be aiming for a (temporary) departure from the Artevelde city. [quote] I suspect the others aren't much different.
Also it's very strange seeing a European team with a Native American chief as a mascot... JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, potential for coverage in the near future, but too little currently available for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Improve). I wanted to say this obviously covers notability as per WikiProject Football Player Notability Guidelines only to see these got superseded, but still... while this new guideline setup will become a gamechanger, for this guy just look at some of the match reports of Sporza [18] Translated quote:
Man of the Match: Matias Fernandez-Pardo was best on the pitch by far. Since the striker got his chance, he has not let go. With two goals, an assist and some nice taps and actions definitely a player the Buffaloes will enjoy a lot in the future.
or [19] (1 goal, 1 big missed chance), or [20] Translated quote:
Man of the Match: Matias Fernandez-Pardo clearly put himself in the spotlights. In the first half with a painfully blatant miss, more than compensating this the second half with an assist and goal.

Made already too much of a name for himself to draftify. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are routine match reports, and the quoted passages are nowhere near SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 17 June 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. To this point, those arguing to keep the article have pointed out correctly that WP:GEOFEAT extends presumed notability to nationally protected places; however, they are incorrect that presumed notability means inherent notability (see definition of presumed at WP:GNG). There is thus a very high burden of proof on those arguing to delete the article to show that the subject is not notable in spite of its presumed notability (this would be the same as coming to a decision that an article that had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" was still not "worthy of notice" in spite of the sources). Those arguing to delete the article have not convincingly demonstrated that this is the case (arguments about lack of sources are an okay start but nobody has addressed the Mercury News references). More convincing are concerns about a close paraphrasing, which this clearly is, but I think this can be dealt with outside of an AfD.

Even if I assign more weight to either side based on policy, I do not see or expect a consensus to emerge from further discussion, so I am closing this now. Malinaccier (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairglen Additions

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

Not all places on the National Register are inherently notable. This article is primarily a paraphrase of the application form (which is neither reliable nor independent), and its only other sources are press releases and other paraphrases of the application form. I can't find any better sources for this, so it fails WP:GNG. – bradv 16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is incorrect. All places on the National Register are in fact inherently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be easy to verify the content of the article using reliable sources. Notability requires verifiable evidence. – bradv 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have gone through this before. Fairglen Additions is notable becuase it has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 6, 2019 and has reliable sources, e.g. NRHP reference 100004036. Please see WP:GEOFEAT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-create as stub. There's zero doubt that Situated within a 1952 urban expansion zone southwest of San Jose's early Willow and other phrasing is plagiarized and edited with an LLM to not be detectable as easily. A stub can exist about Fairglen, but the copy is problematic as is the sourcing. The latter is why I think it's TNT territory. Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long standing consensus that the documentation needed for a place to meet the NRHP qualifies those buildings for articles under GNG. I'm not sure I necessarily completely agree, but it does look like there is enough there for an article here. I haven't done a COPYVIO search on this one and it does need cleanup, but I don't see the problem with having an article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see National Historic Preservation Act passed in 1966. Also see National Register of Historic Places . Any site that is so deemed by the NRHP is definitely notable. These are not only notable, but so designated by the United States Congress. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike possibly most here, I just finished reading that long ... long ... long NRHP form, word by word. The Fairglen Additions are indeed notable. I have no doubt of the notability here. However, it would be helpful if there could be more independent sources (newspapers, etc.) added. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: But doesn't this beg the question, is notability determined by wikipedia's criteria or by someone else's criteria for some other purpose? Even if that someone else is the US Congress. (I can't help but think that the argument that a body in any other country had designated something as notable wouldn't be so easily presumed to be the only argument needed). My read of WP:GEOFEAT is exactly that - a national body saying something is notable should give a presumption of notability here, but is does not necessarily in every case all that is needed. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would like to emphasize that the only reason this addition is notable is because of Joseph Eichler, and his "Eichler Homes". Eichler is mentioned 110 times in this NRHP document citation [21]. The article, should be redirected or merged to Joseph Eichler or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is just that - an addition - to Willow Glen. The reason for its NRHP status is because of the mid-century modern architect/builder Eichler. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the presumption of notability means that there would need to be something overwhelming to prove that presumption wrong. For example, an archeological site on the NRHP, without any publicly available address and any published reports, is one of the few exceptions to this presumption of notability. For what it's worth, this can probably be covered in the Willow Glen, San Jose, article without any problem - we've done this for other NRHP districts as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which says they are presumed notable, which is not the same thing. This is the heart of the question: what would overturn that presumption in favour of notability? My argument would be a total lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS. If all that can be said about it is to paraphrase the (non-neutral) application form for such status, then I do not see how the presumption should apply. And if consensus is that they are notable, I would then agree with Star Mississippi that articles that merely paraphrase the application form should be WP:TNTed. Melcous (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and redirect to the mid-century modern developer/architect Joseph Eichler who is indeed notable (or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is a subdivision). It is the fact that Eichler was the architect/developer that is the key core of why this addition achieved NRHP status in the first place. I also somewhat agree with Star Mississippi that this might be a candidate for WP:TNT and stubbification, however I feel more strongly about the redirect. I also agree with Melcous's comment regarding WP:GEOFEAT; not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable, rather the entries are presumed notable not inherently notable. The lack of GNG and RS is key to that argument. Redirect seems like the best solution.Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, or at least "don't delete" per WP:GEOFEAT. As to the claim that "not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable", in practice almost everything on the NRHP is listed because it is notable for some reason; these reasons are given in the NRHP nomination form. However, given the copyright concerns, it may be proper to consider a WP:TNT rewrite, anyway.
As to the claim that the "application form isn't reliable", that's just plain wrong. Draft applications are not reliable, but final registration forms have been vetted by architectural experts and historians. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: The form itself is just basic information about what criteria it passed to be on the NRHP. To write an article about the property, the user must do other research, just like creating any other article. Some NRHP articles are written better than others, but the basic sourcing should be research beyond what is on the NRHP form. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, thanks for the clarification. I have no other comments on the registration form itself, but I agree with you that articles should cite additional sources as well, not just the form. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per SportingFlyer and Eastmain. This has been discussed before. Places on the National Register are inherently notable. Lacking RS is not a reason for deletion because the article can always be edited/shortened if necessary. C F A 💬 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda: is there a link available to a previous discussion where there is consensus that being on a/any national body's register makes notability inherent rather than presumed, i.e. more than reasons given in a discussion about a particular site? If not, I'd be keen for this broader discussion to occur as this would make literally millions of sites around the world qualify for an article even without WP:SIGCOV (or indeed any coverage). Personally, I can't help but feel the National Register argument is a little US-centric, and wonder if the discussion would be the same I started creating articles for the 20,000+ nationally heritage listed sites in my small part of the world, or if one of our friends from an Asian or African country did the same. Melcous (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 21 June 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¡Qué Locura!

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

I could not find any secondary sources (at least from my search) to justify inclusion per WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Seems like WP:ORIGINAL research. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has two newspaper references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Qué Locura was the main and most popular hidden camera-comedy television show in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.produ.com/television/noticias/los-20-programas-mas-vistos-en-venezuela-son-de-venevision-segun-agb-nielsen/ https://www.laprensalara.com.ve/nota/8041/2019/11/iexclqueacute-locura-el-programa-de-camara-escondida-regresa and plenty of other coverage indeed show it's a popular and notable show. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:20, 15 June 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. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Suchánek

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, respectively because his roles are limited to supporting/minor characters and article lacks sufficient sources. He was last known for starring in The Andromeda Strain before disappearing from the entertainment industry in 2008. My Google searches exclusively showed coverage about the Czech actor but nothing about the younger Michal Suchánek. No news have been reported on him for more than 15 years either. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some roles seem verry very mildly significant. But the 1st source on the page mentions 1 Emmy nomination and 2 Young Artist Award nominations which may have him meet ANYBIO. Notable as a child actor, then.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability, no independent coverage. noms are not awards. - Altenmann >talk 19:58, 14 June 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. Consensus is that sources have been found to establish notability. Other questions about whether to merge similar topics have not been resolved but may be addressed outside of this AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cryptovirology

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

This seems to be something coined by A. Young, and was not adopted in the wider world. Other sources such as Scientific American and the NIST do not mention the word. Also, COI editing is involved here: Special:Contributions/Adamlucasyoung. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I don't see use of the term in any RS, other than here [22] and I'm not sure if that is even a valid source. Appears to be a new word that never caught on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand corrected, Gscholar has many papers using the term and it's been in use since the 1990's [23], [24] and [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a paper by the person who coined the term originally, and so is [4]. Leaves [3], which is not enough. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Oaktree b got one that passed the nominator's litmus test but there plenty are more. For example:

Bhardwaj & Das, Chaos Control Dynamics of Cryptovirology in Blockchain, Chapter 7 of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology Applications (Wiley 2020)
Tivari et al, A Brief Survey of Crypto Virology and Worms (2018)

There are ~~684~~ 855 hits on Google Scholar for this term, only a few of which are by Young. Yes, many are not RS but these would have been found on the most minimal WP:BEFORE search. If @PhotographyEdits still feels this term has not been "adopted in the wider world" then I think it would be incumbent on them to explain what efforts they made to exclude the possibility the google scholar results contain less than two reliable sources with significant coverage of the term. Oblivy (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of passing mentions does not mean it passes the WP:GNG.

Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. A whole lot are just returning a hit because they cite the original paper by A. Young but do not add anything about the term. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the Bhardwaj & Das book chapter? It is literally about cryptivirology ("the study in this chapter deals with the dynamics of worm propagation in cryptovirol-
ogy"). Is that a passing mention?

I don't understand this: Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. Can you explain? Note that when "a whole lot" of papers cite a paper about a concept that can be evidence of notability.

Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Your nomination statement only talked about existing sources and I think disregarding hundreds of hits would generate some explanation. Oblivy (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar?

Yes, I did.

Please also see my comment below.

The ransomware article weirdly states it is part of a larger field called cryptovirology, while this does not seem to be the case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~, not a standard terminology, looks like a promo for its author. Artem.G (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- still sounds strange to me, but google scholar shows 855 results. Artem.G (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The first paper in the results cites Wikipedia itself. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Two books here [26] and [27]. The term is also used in French [28] and here [29]. The term might not be that well-known, but it's used enough to at least show basic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  and here [30] from 2008. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something I did not mentioned but I should make clear: the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As the originator of the terms says in the following article: https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/cryptovirology/

"Years later, the media relabeled the cryptoviral extortion attack as ransomware."

Therefore, this article should be a redirect to ransomware article. The term should only be mentioned in the early history of ransomware. Also, meeting WP:GNG does not mean the subject is required to have an article. We can merge an outdated term into the article with the common name.

PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems we are heading toward a consensus to keep the article, but could we evaluate the nominators thought that this should be merged with ransomware? It's not clear whether this is quite right as Cryptovirology looks like the study of ransomware and similar methods. Pinging @Oaktree b: @Artem.G: @Oblivy: any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like cryptovirology is essentially "the use of cryptography in viruses." It looks like it's mostly ransomeware encrypting data, but according to the article it's also about things like publishing user data in encrypted form to be found by virus makers, and also asymmetric backdoors. So if the article was to be merged it would have to be merged into multiple articles.

Ransomware seems to have pretty good coverage of encryption usage
Backdoor (computing) has a section on asymmetric backdoors that references essentially the same things as the cryptovirology article
Private information retrieval is something the article claims is a theoretical use of cryptography in viruses
The rest (the article mentions viruses communicating with cryptography, and "cryptographic counters") would have to go into Computer virus

So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Kleptography, which may get its own AFD if this one succeeds but could be a merge target. One of the books mentioned above distinguishes cryptovirology into "active" and "passive", where active is essentially ransomware and passive is essentially the kleptography article, so by that definition we would have it covered. The one thing missing is cryptographical virus communication, but that's not discussed in the article other than a trivial mention, so there would be nothing to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article.

My answer to this is a pretty clear 'no'. Also, all the articles you linked is pretty much industry standard terminlogy, while this really is not. My vote is either 'delete' or 'merge and redirect'. Ransomware seems like the best merge target. I might open an AfD to Kleptography as well soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Burchill

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

I first saw this article when I was looking at the cast of Stoned Bros.. I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, this article isn't notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:NACTOR. All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows. LibStar (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I too want this article deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of two co-leads in Stone Bros. so even if nothing else this could be redirected there so there is absolutely no justification for deletion. But it's not just that. His role in Wyrmwood is a significant role so he satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ : That's no excuse keep the article and consider it notable. If you consider an article notable and want to keep it, have it expanded by looking for accurate information. If not, then I'll have it deleted. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This !vote is from the nominator[reply]
You had already !voted as nominator, as Aviationwikiflight and Liz indicated on your talk page. Kindly strike your !vote, thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (and yes, two significant roles are a sufficient reason to consider him notable)[reply]
You can't "vote" twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Applications of WP:SKCRIT#1 and #3. The nominator has failed to provide an accurate deletion rationale and has also failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why was this relisted? The initial nomination failed to raise a valid argument for deletion. One of many problematic nominations that are being discussed at ANI. The sole support was flat out wrong. "All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows." Quite simply wrong, two major film roles. With no credible delete arguments this should have been summarily closed keep instead of a weak arsed relist. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bordering speedy for the reasons mentioned above.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Roles in Stone Bros. and Wyrmwood are enough for NACTOR. Also appears to pass GNG with the sources in the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. When I see a deletion rationale like "Likely fails GNG", that to me means that the nominator isn't sure and in that case deletion should not be sought for an article. If you are seeking deletion, you should be sure that you have good reasons to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treujenn-gaol

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

Likely fails wp:gng Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Music, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some text and references from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no issue that requires deletion. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote to keep this article. It has been improved with additional references and content. Waqar💬 17:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr (2024 film)

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

Disputed draftify. Movie not presently notable. Coverage consists of press releases, WP:CHURNALISM press releases, and release date coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in this article that addresses either general notability or film notability. This article does not speak for itself, and there is no mention of significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists....Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your !vote. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mushy Yank - In my opinion, the burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators. Article authors should wait until the sources exist before moving the article into article space in the expectation that there will be reviews. A film article with no reviews is a film article that should have stayed in draft space or user space until the reviews were published. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain: Not sure why we're here. We are here because the article author wrote an article with no Reception section. That is why we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews in The Week, and The Hindu would be enough to keep this. And there's more coverage (including OTHER REVIEWS in South First, Tribune, Onmanorama, The News Minute, Times Now)... So non-notable, how, why? This meets GNG and NFILM. A redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2024 should have been considered anyway before nomination as ATD. So, I am very sorry but I think this may have been a bit hasty, and am inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw. The person who moved this to Main was right. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, aside from some churnalism or press releases based coverage, so this clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @2pou: who draftified this. — Saqib (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage: thank you for your efforts, but just read the page then, and open the links of the 9 reviews (and there are probably more). :D))) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. — Saqib (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your !vote seems so ....pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews, including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, In short. No, I don't see any coverage here that can help establish GNG. — Saqib (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Not sure why this AfD came up or if a WP:Before was done. So many reliable reviews... I would even advise a Snow Keep. DareshMohan (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Reviews in the article are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The film released yesterday (June 14) and has multiple reliable reviews which satisfy WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly enough coverage since its release yesterday. hinnk (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, withdrawn and keep in light of the new sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, those voting delete have given no proper reasoning as to why the sources aren't adequate. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in assuming good faith, you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete !votes had been stricken at the time of your !vote, which also does not present policy arguments. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is based on the presence of sources in the article combined with no apparent issues with them. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is keep this article stay not deletion by --Sunuraju (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numeer

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

Article about a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- but the referencing is entirely to primary sources, such as his music metaverifying itself on streaming platforms or iTunes or Genius, and/or unreliable celebrity gossip blogs like Celebuzz, which are not support for notability.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO and has no notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ciudatul (talk) 09:54, 18 June 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 reinstate previous redirect.‎. The redirect that was previously in place seems reasonable; the redirect was hijacked by a sock, so will reinstate that and protect. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.Williams

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

None of the links appear to be about "J.Williams" and alternate between being about the musician Sam Williams, whose biography doesn't line up here, and other random famous people with the surname "Williams". For example, the first link is about the funeral of Zac William's sister "Sammy Williams", and the birth name turns up no results at all for famous musicians. Feels like it may be a CSD candidate but it's possible I missed a detail here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. None of the sources are about J. Williams. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Relevant at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cacaonw999. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense article. This same content was repeatedly readded (replacing the existing disambig) at J. Williams by a bunch of accounts who I assume are socks. C F A 💬 01:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Long term abuse (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japansonglove) trying to create this hoax article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I almost wonder if this is something generated by an AI, and we know how they like to invent stuff... --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete not a hope of this being kept: WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOPAGE, WP:AUTO all apply to varying degrees, sufficient unto the day to warrant TNT. That's not even taking into account the behavioural disruption, which includes WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM. WP:HOAX, WP:IMPERSONATE. ——Serial Number 54129 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, salt, and redirect to DAB page J. Williams as {{R from other spelling}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 13:57, 16 June 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 12:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Meade

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any independent sources. I also note that the WP article history is full of SPAs, many editing as IPs. Some of his companies seem to have disappeared as their home pages are blank. (Why blank and not 404 or a DNS-available page? No idea.) Lamona (talk) 04:29, 17 June 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!} 07:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Boxer

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

IMO, the subject fails to meet the GNG. This BLP is relying on unreliable sources and I haven't found much in RS either about this subject that could help establish GNG. The BLP primarily focuses on the subject's 2013 arrest but WP:NOTNEWS. Saqib (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this BLP ProudRafidi also seems to have COI. — Saqib (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ahsan Boxer is as famous as Muhammad Ali Mirza. If the latter article can stay on Wikipedia, then why not this one? Ahsan was involved in a popular blasphemy case and is currently arrested so he is pretty famous here in Pakistan, especially among the Barelvis and Shia Muslims for a number of controversies. ProudRafidi (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ProudRafidi, WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that, thanks for telling! I added several WP:RS sources just a few minutes ago such as the Iran-based ABNA, official press of Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen and Islam Times etc. to the article. The subject is quite notable in Pakistani religious circles and i'm hoping to add more WP:RS here. Thanks! ProudRafidi (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ProudRafidi, Thanks but to make things easier for me and others, why don't you provide some coverage here that you believe sufficiently establishes GNG? — Saqib (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Islam, and Martial arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is created by LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial, who has been at this for 5 years. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as author is CU blocked as a sock so G5 applies here. Toadette^Edit! 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:G5, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kotora

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

Another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer that fails WP:GNG. The only decent website I found is Levice Online, but something tells me interview sources do not count as significant coverage. My Google searches are limited to match reports and passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to meet WP:NSPORT --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from interviews, I found transactional announcements (1) and injury updates (2), but nothing GNG worthy. Ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is what I found: fairly long and significant. Has quotes (is not a "transactional announcement"). Preamble followed by interview. Injury, injury (short). This and this article details how neither he or his team are professional at the current time, for those who still focus on that. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. There are indeed a few sentences of coverage interspersed throughout the series of quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 01:59, 15 June 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!} 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Solberg

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

Article is technically ineligible for a G5, because it got hit by two different UPE socks editing in violation of their respective blocks, and technically ineligible for PROD due to being deleted by PROD before (and, before that, speedied twice).

Subject themselves does not appear significant- out all all the sources, [31] is an interview(by which I mean it's a scan or a print-out she filled in in blue ballpoint), [32] is a site selling her art, [33] is an interview, [34] is from a gallery displaying her art(she was their 'Artist in Resident' at the time of publication), [35] mentions her once in a list, [36] is a link to two interviews, [37] is an interview, [38] is the same as 2 (and still selling her art), [39] is an interview, [40] is her own site, [41] is a video interview, [42] is an interview, [43] is about her art installation, not her, [44] is about her art show, not her, [45] and [46] are the same interviews earlier, this time individually linked, [47] is about a different artist's exhibit that she painted fireworks for(not sigcov worthy fireworks), [48] actually has a paragraph on her (again, not rising to sigcov), [49] has a whole two paragraphs (best source so far), [50] is an announcement of a talk she will give, [51] mentions her work for about two sentences (but is mostly about other artists- but also the second best source), [52] is about an art exhibit, not her, and the Facebook events link is a link on Facebook for an event she planned. I have looked around for additional sources, and haven't found any that would help the subject meet the WP:GNG. And, given that there were two users blocked for likely UPE and socking looking very hard to find such sources, I don't see myself finding any they've missed.

She doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, because the three pieces about her work don't show that she's widely cited or influential, gotten known for originating a new concept, theory, or technique, that she has a major work (or body of works). Her work also hasn't been incorporated into any significant monuments, significant exhibitions, been in a permanent collection or garnered much critical reception. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, California, Colorado, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN and all I can find is an article in her school's paper [53]. Source analysis above is good, I don't find anything extra we can use to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect the photo is a copyvio, but can't find anything else on the web about it. UPE and paid promotion seem to use copyvio photos here... Oaktree b (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination does an excellent job laying it out and this is an easy call for deletion. Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:12, 16 June 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!} 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Haas

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

There's not much significant coverage of Philipp Haas published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. There seem to be 2 interviews with him. He hasn't won any awards. He is just the CEO of a notable company. There is not much for a proper biography article. Ynsfial (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Switzerland, Turkey, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines for people. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above editor comments and nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. And while notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, the absence of notability can certainly be temporary. If, indeed, streets and structures are to be named after this person in the future, and the topic met our notability criteria, nothing would stop us from restoring the article. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnon Zamora

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

WP:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Fram (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:

WP:BIO1E says:

"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."

The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!

In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).

How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?

If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.

Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.

The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.

Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."

Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.

And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day[54], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off[55]... Fram (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.

I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.

However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.

While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.

There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.

If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.

And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.

Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.

Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?

What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?

Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. Zamora being likely to receive honors in the near future is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The redirect can always be undone once notability is established. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. WP:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for, per Fram. Being killed in a military operation isn't significant in itself in WP terms, regardless of how 'heroic' it may seem to the 'home audience'. There could be future coverage about him, but that's WP:CRYSTAL.Pincrete (talk) 06:11, 21 June 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!} 07:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Association of Malmfälten

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

Afd created at the request of User:Dencoolast33. Presumably for lack of notability (local political organisation which once won one seat) and lack of sources (tagged as unsourced since 2009), but it would be best if they explained their reasoning here.

(note: the addition of deletion sorting categories like "Sweden" or "Politics" doesn't seem to work in Twinkle at the moment, hence no delsort added). Fram (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and Politics. Ingratis (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it lacks sources, structure, notebility and content. A simple look at it would make you understand why it should be deleted. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason to cover political entities in a single Swedish muncipality with very limited success. I could say merge to United Socialists, but that too rather looks like a candidate for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's very limited coverage in Swedish media archives. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources given and very little coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:38, 19 June 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!} 05:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoppul Kodi

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing changed from last deletion discussion. Notably the film never released (see List of Tamil films of 2011, which lists every Tamil film). Three database sources, two of which are dead. I tried saving the second one but it was just a search for Thoppul and since Thoppul means navel, the search is questionable (commented out since blacklisted). A Google search in both English and Tamil returns nothing [56] except information about umbilical cords. Speedy delete this article, surpised many people edited this since 2012 and did not nominate. Article creator created article with 10+ bad sources. Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums since only the music released.

Guess who created the article? Either Thomas Rathnam or his fan. DareshMohan (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, no evidence the film was released. hinnk (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough reliable sources to prove notability. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails all criteria for general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FirstVIEW

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

Non-notable database or website. Doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. I can't find any RS online nor on article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than its own web site I found nothing. It seems to still be active, and its main product appears to be licensing photos of fashion shows. That's all I can glean. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer, it does not appear standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Battle Cat's section on the character list. The only things from the article that seem worhty of transplanting there is the "Origin" section as it provides some details on the character's creation.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per PanagiotisZois. There are some very limited reliable sources about the origin that can be WP:PRESERVEd. But much of this article is unsourced, making it inappropriate for an article of its own. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 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!} 23:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bienaimé

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

I don't think the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. Santa monique also uploaded both photos of Bienaimé, claiming them as their own work. Risedemise (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was some controversy surrounding her nomination [57], [58], but I don't find enough about this person to create an article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough for an article and doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 19:40, 14 June 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!} 23:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Shah (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions in The Hindu and Fortune. He's interviewed in The Week as cited, but that's a primary source. Passing mentions, routine coverage in trade blogs and softball interviews was all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Promotional tone and editing history of article creator suggests UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Page is of a businessman but it is notabke as per wikipedia guidelines.News coverage is enough in News media60.254.0.91 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) — 60.254.0.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources. The page has mostly routine news coverage and announcements that are not sufficient basis for a page on this subject. Fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the cited sources are trivial mentions and I can't find any significant coverage. — hako9 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 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 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Noor City

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

Similar/linked to Bridge of the Horns, this article is a crystal ball with minimal references, all of which are non-substanial and/or routine coverage of a proposal that has gone nowhere and never will. Even their website is defunct, I see it unlikely to ever reach proper notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Yemen. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Patently absurd concept, not a real proposal. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Received a flurry of news coverage in 2008-2010 but no sign of long-term notability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 14 June 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 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khanindra Chandra Chowdhury

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

With single-digit citation counts and searches finding no published book reviews, he appears to fail both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Was prodded in 2014, unsuccessfully. Created and edited by a succession of single-purpose accounts. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently published or known. Fulmard (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NPROF for sure. Qflib (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --hroest 10:49, 17 June 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!} 05:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Chicken

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

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject. — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. City of Silver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:

'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'

WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED

Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating

CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS

Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend

SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE

Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC

Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?

Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a rough consensus although the discussion is trending towards Delete until new sources were brought into the discussion. An assessment of them would be helpful. Looking at this article, it has been the subject of numerous edit wars for some reason.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some questionable (no Wiki link since local) additional sources but the County Press and The Guardian are notable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough independent coverage. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviews of individual outlets is not a basis for establishing notability of the company. If it was, it would appear in NCORP guidelines. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 18 June 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!} 05:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Space Contemporary

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

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources used in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 14 June 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 Apostolos Angelis (composer). There's a clear consensus that the content doesn't qualify for a standalone article, but no clear choice as to the best redirect or merge target. Discussion about a better redirect target can continue on the target's Talk page, and any editor is welcome to merge any encyclopedic content into other pages. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need ONE redirect. target article, a closer shouldn't be flipping a coin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I noticed the article is nominated for deletion. While this article is one of my first contributions under this username, I've been a longtime Wikipedia editor committed to following notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The flagged concern regarding promotional content seems like a misunderstanding. My intent is always to provide a well-sourced and informative article about a notable or "worthy of notice" subject. Suggestions for improvement and collaboration to bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards are always welcome. Thank you all for your time and consideration. OrangedJuice (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrangedJuice Could you please clarify what you mean by "under this username"? Have you used other accounts before? Or were you previously an IP editor? In case you were not aware, there are fairly strict rules on when you can use multiple accounts. Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for participants to decide on one Merge/Redirect target article. One of those suggested is actually a Redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I think what needs to happen before merging is for a referendum on the notability of the target musicians. This AfD should be tabled until that's decided. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is hard to AGF when the creator's contributions make them look exactly like a single-purpose promotional account. The comment implying (ab)use of multiple accounts also worries me. That aside, this article has been horribly refbombed, and even so it is clear that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references are primary sources (links to the record label's website or songs on streaming platforms). The remaining sources are chart listings (no sigcov) and promotional press releases that clearly say "press release" at the top (not independent). This clearly fails the GNG, NCORP, and any other applicable notability guideline. Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 21 June 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 ESPNews. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 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!} 05:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Genealogical and Historical Society

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

Local history society that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The below is a high-level analysis of sources present in the article at time of nom:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sources 1-4		~ Blogs and user sites	Basic listings	✘ No
Sources 6-7	WP:SELFPUB	WP:SELFPUB	?	✘ No
American Press article			~ Although this is predominantly coverage of the person, and notability is not WP:INHERITED, there is some SIGCOV of the society.	~ Partial
Sources 9-13	~ Varies	~ Varies	Many of these sources do not even mention the article subject; at best they are WP:PASSING mentions.	✘ No
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}}.

Other coverage that I have been able to locate essentially falls into one of these same three categories: WP:ROUTINE mentions in genealogical material; WP:PRIMARY sources published by the org themselves - not an indicator of notability; and trivial mentions in sources concentrating on other subjects.

While this appears to be an active organisation, it also appears to be at best a case of WP:LOCALFAME. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Louisiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on the above assessment. Not a widely-known or widely-referred-to organization.

WmLawson (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co.

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

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally operating, 8th-largest law firm of Israel with plenty of coverage in 74 (!) years of existence. Easy pass of NORG. Unclear how this could have nevertheless been nominated. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Gidonb, could you provide a few hebrew RS with sigcov? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking what was added. This from Globes is a company announcement about expanding to Haifa with a merger and contains no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. this in YNet is another company announcement, this time expanding to Casablanca in Morocco, also fails ORGIND. They're a big firm, as can be seen from the announcements, but that doesn't meet our criteria for notability, we need very specific types of references. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Highking's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one has provided sourcing establishing the firm meets NCORP. "Being the largest X in Y" is not a notability criterion, and WP should not serve as an advertisement (which is exactly what this article is doing when it's sourced to non-SIRS media). JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independent_sources EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 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!} 02:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

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

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g 🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.

"Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.

"What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.

"8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.

"10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.

"Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.

"9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.

Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.

Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2

Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.

Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015

Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.

Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf

Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image_stitching#Software: until better sourcing is found. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much work has been done here but it is simply not encyclopaedic enough. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:10, 19 June 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 Gavin Baddeley. The history will need to be moved to an unambiguous title, but since there are three different suggestions I'll let editors sort that out on their own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer Rising (book)

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

Fails NBOOK and GNG. I was able to find one review from Melody Maker on ProQuest (which I could not actually access, but I'm going to accept it's sigcov), this however is not enough for NBOOK, which needs two. Merge/redirect to author Gavin Baddeley if there aren't more reviews? There are a few sources that are interviews with Baddeley that were printed in many newspapers, and while that would be useful for expanding the article if it passed NBOOK, does not count for notability since they don't provide independent commentary on the book itself. It's halfway there, but I haven't been able to find another review.

FWIW I did remove the sources from the page, but not a single one actually mentioned the book, just about the topics the book covered. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to author page without coverage in two independent sources. Astaire (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fulmard (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Gavin Baddeley per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
This entry from Amazon.com notes:
Review
1. Fascinating and often shocking but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone. --Melody Maker, 2nd Feb, 2000.
2. "The result of six years of intensive research, Lucifer Rising is lavishly illustrated with rare and unusual images, most of which are previously unseen... Baddeley has written a definitive study of a timeless subject allowing his interviewees to speak for themselves while ignoring the well-trodden pathways followed by other less-discerning writers. As a study of the potent blend of the occult and the cult of rock, it s unparalleled. Highly recommended. --Record Collector, January, 2000.
3. "Forgive us, Lord, for this is an entertaining, witty read." --Maxim, March, 2000.
There is a copy of the 51-word Melody Maker review here:
Subtitled "Sin, Devil Worship And Rock'n'roll", this starts as a history of early Satanism, through medieval black masses, to thrash, death and black metal. And, of course, Marilyn Manson. Fascinating and often shocking - but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone.
The Melody Maker review is too short to be significant coverage. It is possible this book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria from the Record Collector and Maxim sources, but I do not have access to them. This article in the Evening Standard discusses the book but is largely an interview with the author. I am fine with a redirect without prejudice against restoring the article if significant coverage is verified or found.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few books and films with this name, so hard to find reviews about this particular book. I couldn't find anything we can use and the sources given now aren't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a Lucifer Rising (novel). I recommend preserving the article's history as I wrote above. To address Oaktree b's comment about there being a few books with this name, we could do this:
1. Move Lucifer Rising (book) to Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book). Redirect Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book) to Gavin Baddeley so that the history is preserved under the redirect.
2. Redirect Lucifer Rising (book) to the disambiguation page Lucifer Rising, which can mention both Lucifer Rising (novel) and the Gavin Baddeley book.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard The book’s subtitle is “Sin, Devil Worship and Rock'n'Roll” so maybe it could be moved to the title with the subtitle? I forget the preferred style. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline for naming book articles is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation. If we needed to disambiguate Lucifer Rising (book), I think Lucifer Rising (Baddeley book) would be the correct name. But since we are moving the history to be under a redirect, having the title include the book's subtitle would be fine too. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, this is too complicated for an AFD closure. Please focus on what should happen with this specific article and you can work out the other page moves and disambiguation stuff later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene C. Lee

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

Only one (arguably) notable credit, likely to fail WP:NACTOR. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fulmard (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this person is not notable enough and doesn't fit the notability guidelines for people. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a biography, lacks depth and notability. Waqar💬 20:47, 15 June 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 Soyuzmultfilm#TV series as a sensible AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoons

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

Fails WP:GNG; all coverage both in article and in BEFORE search provides only WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:TVSERIES does not apply in the absence of reliable sourcing about its production. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Soyuzmultfilm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Russia. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how this fails notability. There are sources in the article. I must also add that the addition of the deletion tag seems premature as it was added only 9 minutes after the addition of those calling for the improvement of the article. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added them as part of new page review, which was when I did source analysis and decided they did not meet WP:GNG. Did you look at the (two) sources? They each have a single passing mention of the show, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the sources should only write about the show? At least they say something like the show is one of the selected ones in the country aimed for more international exposure. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg of you to read the WP:SIGCOV page. It's very clear about the kind of coverage required. Brief passing mentions don't count. The sources you cited are fine to include in the article to validate facts, but they don't do anything to establish the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Soyuzmultfilm. Article certainly does fail SIGCOV. It's all unsourced fancruft with both citations barely mentioning the subject in passing, as stated by the nom. The show has been around three years yet a Gsearch mainly turns up this while content for the show consists of YouTube clips. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soyuzmultfilm#TV_series (not opposed to keep; added 2 sources for verification; opposed to deletion)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. I agree with your rationale to redirect since the sources are direct links to a video platform and press releases from Soyuzmultfilm and thus don't contribute to notability as a standalone topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this source^[1] tells entirely about the show, doesn't this count as significant coverage? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant, but it's not independent. At the top it says "Пресс-релизы," or press release See WP:PRSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one^[2] a press release? I don't see "Пресс-релизы" in it. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kind of hard for anyone to verify who doesn't understand Russian. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I myself can’t read Russian web pages, but I can translate them. The same should apply to everyone else. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested is fine, PR items don't help notability. I don't find any else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the second source I posted here is PR. It doesn't explicitly say that it is. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.
^ "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.

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 without prejudice against renomination in a month, if still needed once the page title issue has been straightened out. Two administrative notes:

Moving a page during its AfD is disruptive not just for the closing admin, but also for participants, especially when the page title is a contentious issue. Unless the title itself violates policy, the move can wait until the AfD is closed.
If you relist an AfD, you are assumed to be--and stay--uninvolved. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rol Naath

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

I can find no reliable sources which refer to the place or term "Rol Naath". It may need to be renamed, e.g. Nuer Nation, but is it a nation? The sources included in the article do not seem to mention Rol Naath, but I do not have full access to the offline soures. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sudan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MSGJ Rol Naath is the Nuer people's home in South Sudan just like Igboland, Yorubaland in Nigeria to name a few. Nuer Nation is an English translation of what the name means. To your question "Is it a nation?", According to the dictionary, a Nation is a body of people having a common descent, history, culture, or language but without a separate or politically independent territory. It doesn't necessarily mean an independent country. Sovereignty is a different thing.

Rol Naath is part of South Sudan. South Sudan is comprised of 64 different ethnic groups and each of these groups has its own land with its name. You can't just nominate an article for deletion just because you don't know what the title means and even after reading through the article. This Nuer people are one of the most studied people in Africa by anthropologists. Please read The Nuer, The Nuer conquest, The Nuer religion, The Nuer Nation, Bok in Yel, Wut Naath, few of many reliable sources that back up this article.

To address your concern about renaming the article, according to Wikipedia:Article titles, The title must indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. Rol Naath is what the article is about, the land of Nuer People within South Sudan and some part of Ethiopia. The title should not be the translation of what the article is about. The translations in both Arabic and English are already within the article. Gatwech Gai (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources around Igboland and Yorubaland in Nigeria but this article looks like a fringe claim to bolster an ethnic group land claims. If you look to the map in this article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan.

From your work at Nuer massacre, I really think you have an axe to grind and you are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know its surprising to me to hear what a lot people think about Africans. I guess i understand now why people rarely find stuff about Africa on Wikipedia "a fringe claim to bolster an ethnic group land claim'? really? this land existed even way before the European colonization and you are making it look like Nuer are some kind of European who are trying to colonize some other ethnic groups?

there is clear traditional land borders between each ethnic groups in South Sudan and even though the country is not stable currently, its not because of land and its not because some ethnic groups want out.

Take a good look again on the maps in this article and the one in the Nuer people, do not let the grey lines confuse you, Dinka written is there on their land and Nuer is written on the portion of their land.

Leave the Nuer massacre work to its talk page. This is about the land. I checked too many articles and almost all of them are build up on combination of sources from books and others and they are perfectly fine. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Article titles, this is clearly at the wrong title. It's also difficult to determine whether the topic is actually notable or whether it's WP:SYNTH or a WP:POVFORK, as none of the scholarly searches I can actually access which contain the phrase "Nuer nation" discuss anything the article talks about, and the sources are off-line. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well per Wikipedia:Article titles, its clearly noted that the title be about the article which the Rol Naath is. How come you can't find scholarly research about the Nuer and their land when they are the most studied ethnic group in Africa? E.E. Evan Pritchards in 1940 went to Nuer land on British government order to study the Nuer, he published The Nuer Nuer Religion, which pretty much cover every aspect of Nuer people's lives. These books ended up being taught in various universities in England and United State.

There are other books that specifically talk about Rol Naath as well and you may as well take a good look The Nuer State: Rol Naath, The History of Nuer Nation 5000 BCE to 1943, The Uniques Background of the Nuer Nation.

Notes: there are many sources about the Nuer people's land out there but most of them are not for free. Any one here who think Rol Naath be deleted might first need to sacrifice some money to acquire these sources before you claim that no scholarly sources available. Gatwech Gai (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even considering that it is sometimes rendered "Rol Nath", the sources you give are clearly self-published. All of them, including "The History of Nuer Nation 5000 Bce to 1943" looks like a screed to get Nuer people to take some sort of political action, which in Africa usually leads to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the 5000 BCE is laughable and evidence of uncorrectable bias. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, your point of view on this topic is leading you to difference issues. If you think Nuer land being on Wikipedia is getting them take some sort of political action, did the Igbo and Yoruba people demand political action since their lands were published on Wikipedia? Was the Nuer massacre perpetrated because of their land?

let this be about the topic in question and not making it about what you think may happen. keep that to yourself. Gatwech Gai (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not someplace to "keep it to myself". You are a keyboard warrior who very likely is one of the people who wrote/posted those unreliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I performed scholarly research and book searches for both "Rol Naath" and "Nuer Nation" (and now "Rol Nath.") No hits for Rol Naath and Rol Nath, and "Nuer Nation" brought up 37 sources, but nothing which closely matches the topic of this article, which is about a geographic area. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's definitely parts of this article which could be added or merged to other articles on the Nuer people, but I'm not seeing clear GNG-qualifying sources which suggest notability for the geographic or cultural region, making this WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not seeing clear GNG-qualifying sources which suggest notability for the geographic or cultural region"? the 1955-56 map made by British Condominium rule in Sudan is in there and the geographical border between Dinka land and the Nuer land is very clear.

So you really think Nuer people do not have cultural region? why not check Sudan open archive (or may be you will have trouble finding source in there) if the sources that i have provided are not enough for you, seems like each one here is trying to justify his/her POV of why they want this article to be deleted but refused to acknowledge the wonderful work E.E Evan Pritchards on Nuer people.

Nuer people is unreadable by the way, one of the Nuer fellow called me yesterday to help improve the article but it look like the African input about themselves are not welcomed here but non-African input about Africa are being welcomed with open armed.

I still think this article about Nuer people's land should not be deleted. Gatwech Gai (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting otherwise - I am suggesting this particular article, as written, is problematic. I did find some accessible writings by Evans-Pritchard, and he calls the area "Nuerland" so I did a search on "Nuerland" which brings up far more sources, many of which are reliable, and I think it would be possible to write an article at that title. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ comment: This article looks like a fringe claim (maybe totally a hoax too) to bolster an ethnic group's land claims. If you look to the map in this article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan. See this video that comes as the top of the list when searching for the article title which exactly talk about ethnic separation.

From this editor work at Nuer massacre, I really think they have an axe to grind and they are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising to do that. This editor has refused to listen and accused everyone who is pointing to the problems with the way they operate, as "working for the genocidal government of South Sudan?", or some kind of conspiracy and has been warned for it but continued with the same behaviour when challenged. You can also look no further than the discussion above.

editors can choose to merge it to the Nuer people article but please be careful to weed out what is opinion written as fact (which can be fixed) and what is just totally fabricated.

As for now, Gatwech Gai has responded to all comments, almost engaging in some serious WP:BLUD FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before you accuses me of all of that, if you can use whatever video you find on Youtube to justify the deletion of the article on Wikipedia, did you use the Puntland declaration of their own autonomy region from the rest of Somalia to delete their article on Wikipedia? or Did anyone here use the need for Igbo independent state as a reason to delete Igboland from Wikipedia?

Random talks on Youtube do not justify an article deletion from Wikipedia. Anyone can make videos on Youtube just to generate some viewers and get paid at the end of the day. There is never separation happening in South Sudan. Two of the five vice presidents of South Sudan are both Nuer.

Again, the Rol Naath article shouldn't be deleted on Wikipedia. Gatwech Gai (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nuerland is Nuer people's traditional homeland. It is located in south Sudan and some part of Western Ethiopia. Nuer people call themselve Naath and their country Rol Naath. For additional reading concerning Nuerland, please see: NuerLand and its location, Nuer people distribution, The Nuer by E.E. Pritchards, The Nuer description, The Nuer:description, The Nuer people of South Sudan, Nuer custom and folklore and Sudan Open Archive. Gatwech Gai (talk)
Comment: article has been moved to Nuerland — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is for “The Nuer State” and “Röl Nath” which are different from Nuerland. I think I will spend time fixing this article since it’s now about Nuerland and not a recent ethnic claim of land that came to prominence after the South Sudanese Civil War FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liz has moved it back with edit summary "Please do not move a page that is a subject of an AFD, it makes closure very complicated". This seems bureaucratic in the extreme, when everyone seems to agree it was at the wrong title — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, it's not bureaucratic, we use XFDcloser to close discussions and the tool can't process when the name of the AFD is different than the new name of an article. Like I said, it complicates relisting and discussion closure, that's all. Close dozens of AFDs and you'll see for yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucratic: excessively complicated administrative procedure ... yep, that sounds correct — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I admit that it's a bit confusing with name change so I'm not exactly clear on what the goal is here. I see three books by University presses on the Nuer - which I don't have to hand but I am going to assume that they would be suitable sources for an article on this place. However, there is much in this article that is sourced to original sources or at least institutional sources that may not meet the standard of independence. That weakens the notability claim so adding more reliable sources is needed. Lamona (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the sources about Nuerland (or some other placename) or are they are about the Nuer people? Would be great to have these references if you can dig them out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see:
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (2016) [1940]. NUER: a description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a nilotic people ... (classic reprint). Forgotten Books. ISBN 978-1-33380-312-4. OCLC 980437822

Shandy, Dianna J. (2006). Nuer-American Passages: Globalizing Sudanese Migration. Gainesville, Florida: U of Florida.

Kelly, Raymond Case (1985). The Nuer Conquest: The Structure and Development of an Expansionist System. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472080563.

I don't have access to most of them but they are entire books so I am assuming that there will be some mention of the geographical area and its history in relation to the people. I tried Open Library and there is a borrowable copy of the Evans-Pritchard book which has maps showing which groups occupy which land. I'm just going on faith, I admit. I would not object if some of this were included in the Nuer people article rather than a separate article, but I think that would mean eliminating the detail about the counties. Lamona (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but needs some serious copy editing. x q 22:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did some digging and found: Howell, P. A Manual of Nuer Law. (1954). The term Nuerland shows up 55 times and there is a good 7-page section describing the Nuerland. There were a few other academic books that showed up with a search of "Nuerland," but I couldn't get access to them. I think overall I am in favor of keeping this article. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on naming. The above source actually clears up some of the naming confusion, which is not super relevant to the AFD but is probably of interest for renaming: "If one meets an Englishman in Germany and asks him where his home is, he may reply that it is England. If one meets the same man in London and asks him the same question, he will tell one that his home is in Oxfordshire, whereas if one meets him in that county, he will tell one the name of the town or village in which he lives. If questioned in his town or village he will mention his particular street, and if questioned in his street he will indicate his house. So it is with the Nuer. A Nuer met outside Nuerland says that his home is cieng Nath, Nuerland. He may also refer to his tribal country as his cieng, though the more usual expression for this is rol. If one asks him in his tribe what is his cieng, he will name his village or tribal section according to the context." Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 21 June 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 Lists of mosques. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques

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

Merge request at Talk:Lists of mosques#Merge proposal that did not seek to merge any content. Their rationale implies that the content is not worthy of being merged, so it is within the scope of AfD.

List of mosques serves no useful purpose. It's clearly too vague to ever be a viable list article per WP:SALAT (e.g. there's no List of church buildings either, as far as I can see). This is a function accomplished by Category:Mosques. The list has no proper inclusion criteria: the lead states "some of the more famous mosques", but that's obviously unhelpful, there's little about the current list that suggests the additions are being limited to "famous" mosques, and even if we tried to enforce such a criteria it would inevitably be an unclear POV mess; anything can be "famous" from a certain POV, and "notable" would by definition include every Wikipedia mosque article (which, again, is what categories are for). There are of course almost no sources in that article either, despite the many additional claims inserted into the list. All of this makes it incompatible with the guidelines outlined at WP:STANDALONE. The only useful version of this would be an article that links to more precise lists of mosques. This already exists here at Lists of mosques (notwithstanding some needed improvements). Two articles with such similar titles are also likely to cause confusion and they already look like WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other. Therefore, List of mosques should simply redirect here.
— User:R Prazeres 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the above. Indeed I only proposed as merge because I thought a blank-and-redirect would fall under that type of proposal, but deleting (with or without redirect) addresses the problem too. R Prazeres (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This can survive, and quite possibly should, as a list-of-lists, assuming someone wants to make sub-lists, say for per-nation mosque lists, which can in turn be lists of per-province mosque lists. Absent that, a comprehensive list in one file doesn't seem to be terribly useful or maintainable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original merge proposal copied above.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, easy to miss! R Prazeres (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got confused by the similar titles but while lists of mosques is a navigational list this one isn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most spurious nominations I've ever seen, to be honest. Category:Lists of religious building lists even has a container category for these sorts of pages, and the See Also section functions similarly to other pages in that category. This is really a speedy keep in my book - deleting this is completely non-sensical. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of mosques. Upon further review, this article and that article are functional duplicates. I did not read the entirety of the nomination statement, which I thought was making an incorrect argument that mosques should be categorised instead, and that we were deleting the master article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It seems pretty uncontroversial that the two articles should simply be merged using Lists of mosques as the title, which appears has been largely done already. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Lists of mosques per the above. I would have supported a straight redirect if the Lists article didn't list some individual mosques as well, but there indeed are individual mosques listed on the Lists article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius I thoroughly disagree with a merge. The way a page happened to be is frankly not a strong reason why we should go along, because anyone can edit, and a page may simply not have attracted any potential opposing valid views. Listing individual mosques contradicts with the nature of a page that, per its title, should have been a "list of lists". I checked the edit history of that page. And apparently, this edit a few years ago added a whole lotta individual mosques to what once was truly a list of lists. The account behind the edit has only 7 edits and has not been active since. Likely due to little traffic then, no one reverted that edit and went along with the flow. After this AfD, the removal of the individual mosques from that page is warranted in my opinion. Aintabli (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli, as I mentioned, I am fine with either a redirect or a merge. I only mentioned a merge in case there was a desire to maintain tables of individual mosques on the Lists page. If these tables of individual mosques are removed, then I prefer a redirect instead. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the most suitable option. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of mosques: I fail to see why this should be merged. A list of mosques, even if it is only the "famous" ones, which is too vague, is impossible. Transferring content to the Lists of mosques would contradict the purpose of that page. Aintabli (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Fulmard (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Sebalu

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

2 cited sources, one is a blog and the other is unreachable. Yes, he may be the Minister of Finance, but I'm failing to find SIGCOV of this individual. All I can see is passing mentions. Probably not notable just like his successors. dxneo (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Uganda. dxneo (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as a finance minister, and a perfunctory Google search as well as a search on newspapers.com ([59]) shows quite a few sources which can be used to sustain an article (WP:NEXIST). Curbon7 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having sources unreachable is not a genuine reason. Subject is not the current but was a finance minister soon after independence which I hope in the days was notable. A quick Google search on books brings lots of recorded books, see here, here and here. This shows that subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NPOL - Tumbuka Arch (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the nomination: per recent article improvement. Word to Tumbuka Arch, I would suggest that next time if an article is moved to draftspace, it must not be moved back to mainspace without convincing improvements that it passes WP:NBIO as WP:BLP is a very delicate subject which requires strong sourcing. I couldn't verify the notability of the subject based on an unreachable source and blog source. dxneo (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Dxneo here. I have cleaned-up the article and added to it significantly in terms of both prose and sourcing, but am generally not a big fan of cleaning up other people's messes. Curbon7 (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.

[2] "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.

[1]

[2]