Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago

WP:AFD/2da

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 20	November 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Arts Marketing Association

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

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Seems to have quite a lot of coverage in books on arts marketing and management. Theres coverage in The Routledge Companion to Arts Marketing (2013, Routledge) Arts Marketing Insights: The Dynamics of Building and Retaining Performing Arts Audiences (2011, Wiley), Arts Marketing (2007, Taylor & Francis), Strategic Management in the Arts (2013, Taylor & Francis), etc. There are 219 hits in google scholar. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As it is now, this subject does not seem notable, and I'm not sure if it ever could be, but I am happy to change my mind if someone volunteers to clean up and expand this article into something that meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps one more week will make a consensus more clear...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in these highly specialised marketing books is entirely trivial, passing mentions (mentions in people's CVs and the like) every one. The mention of the Arts Marketing Association in scholarly books about Arts Marketing should not really be a surprise (and no prejudice at all to the nominator for their WP:BEFORE), but there is no sustained or significant coverage in ANY of these titles to merit a pass of WP:GNG let alone NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related sources I found: Full page- classical-music-uk, 2 Mentions- heritagefund, 1 mention- museumsandheritage, Guardian artprofessional artprofessional theartnewspaper.

ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are mentions in books, they are mostly passing mentions. Even the reference in the Routledge Companion looks like one line, in a contributor's biography. I'd have expected more coverage in that book if the organisation's activities are notable. This, about their mentoring scheme, looks like the most extended coverage, but reads WP:ROUTINE to me. I have looked at the Google scholar results, of which the most substantial looks as if it is in the book Creative Arts Marketing; the introduction is by the then chair of the AMA, but apart from that the coverage is mostly in one paragraph and mainly gives the number of members in 2001 and a bit about training and events. It does mention that the organisation was created from two other local or regional orgs, so possibly there's a bit more out there in pre-internet sources, but I'm not too hopeful. I did look at the British Newspaoer Archive - I don't have full access, but the search results were fairly minimal. The significant coverage found by Exclusive Editor in classical-music.uk reads like a press release and also looks like routine coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, other than a biography ([1]) and an album review ([2]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Maverick Records, and the Allmusic entries are serviceable references; they also toured nationally with Stone Temple Pilots and Linkin Park. I managed to dig up [3] this review as well, even though it's gotten very difficult to find album reviews from 20+ years ago on the Internet. Chubbles (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to a member of Under the Influence of Giants, Bitch City was never released ([4]; according to Discogs it was apparently self-released [5]). Regardless, notability is not inherited, and I don't see Linkin Park mentioned anyway. I don't know if ink19 is a reliable source, but even if it is, there's just not enough coverage to establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~Keep~~ as presuming MUSICBIO notability per above coverage, and given the age presuming that further coverage is likely. Further evidence is an album review available in Hits 2002; critical coverage Hits 2001; and the CMJ new music reports indicate extensive airplay, including for example: [6]. There's a lot of hits on worldradiohistory that will take time to sift. ResonantDis_tortion 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've identified further coverage on ProQuest - not major sigcov, but better than passing mentions: Detroit Free Press - they "often bore", two paragraph gig review supporting Incubus in News Gazette, album review in Morning Call, and paragraph of coverage in Billboard. ResonantDis_tortion 21:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aaron Bruno#Home Town Hero. First, they did not release two albums on Maverick, only one. Second, I think the reviews and other coverage falls just short of the depth that would be required. I also found more reviews, [7] [8] but as you can see these are not reliable or significant enough. Last but not least, we lack independent sources for nearly all the band history. A merger would preserve the edit history and it can be revived later if more sources are scanned/made available. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I can get behind this as an WP:ATD, and strike my previous !vote to keep. There is certainly sufficient reliable coverage to demonstrate a level of notability, and therefore the subject does warrant a presence on Wikipedia, but we are, at current standing, one in-depth article away from coverage to support a distinct seperate article. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Under the Influence of Giants as an ATD, per nom. Although I do have SOME reservations based on the lack of sourcing and notability in that target: it's a hot wee mess, that article... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lu (music)

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

It is written as an original investigation, Fails WP:SIGCOV. Jinnllee90 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really see how a one-sentence stub article with a book reference falls under the description in the nomination above? Anyway, a Google Books search shows other summaries of this music, such as in Rachel Pang 's recent "Singer of the land of snows", where Lu can be seen described as "deeply rooted in the popular, oral and folk traditions of Tibet". AllyD (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: A similar summary exists in Music of Tibet#History, but without a reference. I think that can provide a WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've boldly performed the merge into Music of Tibet § History after also finding a better source. I'm landing on delete instead of redirect for a few reasons:
- The disambiguator (music) here is not very helpful, and fails PRECISE.
- It's not clear whether "lu", on its own, is a full transliteration of the Tibetan word for this topic. I'm not familiar with Tibetan, but I know its phonology contrasts two vowel lengths and two or more vowel tones, none of which are indicated anywhere here, nor is a native term provided to assist searching for additional information.
- Subsidiary to this, the Chinese terms for the subject (spelt including the loangraph 魯) never refer to the subject using only that word, which is ambiguous outside the context of historical geography. (This term is also not provided in the article, and it took me probably twenty minutes to narrow down keyword searches sufficiently to find a Chinese source on the topic.)
- No good redirect target unless we want to break out a separate subheading in Music of Tibet specifically for folk music. That article is currently partitioned entirely differently: § History is mostly about sacred music, with a single paragraph touching on secular folk forms; § Popular and modern seems inapplicable. A subparagraph anchor to the single sentence on "lu" folk music would be a disappointing clickthrough.
- Most of the inlinks are from template transclusions, so cleanup should be easy. I did retain the link at Music of Tibet § History just in case.
If someone wants to expand on the subject we could revisit a potential redirect or recreation. AllyD seems to have found sources, and the source I added has good further information, although only the first half of the article is visible without registration.
Noting I also don't understand / agree with the nomination rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rowland

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

Delete - my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any decent sources with significant coverage - listings and fan sites only. Even if there was something for her role on Prisoner, I suggest that that alone would not be sufficient for WP:NACTOR and in particular significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - Prisoner seems to be the highlight. As an alternative, could Redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzemehefe (name)

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

This name page does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. My WP:BEFORE reveals only passing mentions in lists of Nigerian names, no significant coverage. A search on Wikipedia for "Uzemehefe" reveals no matches, so it cannot be converted to a disambiguation page. I am also not seeing a plausible redirect target, so I believe deletion is in order. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nigeria. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero, literally ZERO, out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – two of the refs in the article don't even mention it as far as I can tell. Does not meet GNG. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For any new page reviewers seeing this, there is centralized discussion of many similar Nigerian name articles at WP:ANI#Nigerian name project. I created this AfD before beeing aware of the thread, and I'd suggest holding off on nominating similar articles for deletion until the discussion is resolved. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 23 March 1654

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

This article was tagged as a hoax. I'm fairly certain it is, along with Action of 2 May 1654, but since the article has existed for nearly 20 years at this point I figured it made sense to give it a fighting chance.

The 2 May 1654 article cites this JSTOR article. I couldn't find reference to events on 23 March or 2 May 1654 in that article, nor could I find evidence of these events elsewhere on the web besides Wikipedia mirrors.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 April 1695, where a similar conclusion was drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Sri Lanka, and Portugal. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa. The cited JSTOR article describes in great detail the Van Goens mission to Colombo and Goa in 1653 and 1654. Page 94 reads: "The galleons had reached Colombo towards the end of March 1654 and, as Van Goens had feared, after a splintering engagement outside the Colombo harbour entrance, they had broken through". This description fits the Action of 23 March 1654 exactly: place, date, situation, context, number of ships, result. The article is certainly not a hoax; the battle indeed took place and I am sure that a more thorough investigation could reveal the source that the author of this article evidently must have used. Having said that, it is clear to me that the title of the article is wrong. For lack of a commonly accepted name for the battle, a descriptive name was employed: Action of 23 March 1654. The battle is not known and described under that name. Many articles titled "Action of (date)" have the same problem. No battle is known by such a name. A google or jstor search will not produce any result. What to do? There is a notability guideline that helps out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide in the section Events says: Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article. Hence, I propose to merge both the Action of 23 March 1654 and the Action of 2 May 1654 in the article about the Dutch-Portuguese War. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar Ah - well spotted. I had assumed that because the article was named so specifically, an event on 23 March would have been specifically dated in the source, I skimmed the relevant sections but missed the quote you added. I think merging makes sense to me since the actions described here did actually happen. Sam Walton (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did a search after looking at the CSD tagging and I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources that suggested this event took place. I was about to PROD the page since it isn't an obvious or blatant hoax, but no coverage either way. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who posted the initial CSD tag. No results turn up in Google Books or Google Scholar despite apparently being a battle from a major war, making it very likely a fabrication. Lazman321 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and fails verification. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dutch-Portuguese War#Incursion into the East Indies: Batavia challenges Goa per above. I'm not sure why you'd vote delete when a merge has been proposed with a valid target and rationale and been accepted as a solution by the nominator! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb The comment order is confusing, the merge vote came after the delete votes :) Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, then checked. Of course, what I missed was the am and pm bits. Sort of important, wouldntcha think? Boing... idiot... All deleters duly forgiven, apologies and comely blushes all round. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mingyo

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

No indication of notability for this athlete, other than amateur collegiate titles in a non-NCAA sport. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Texas, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT: A search for (secondary) sources turns up nothing providing significant coverage of the athlete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Has earned zero points towards a world ranking and is currently ranked 24th in her division by USATKD. College level success means nothing in the martial arts (see WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [9], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [15]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [16]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.

At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.

Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a DICTDEF, and a excessively-specific (and obsolete) definition at that. The only source is a 2006 patent. gettext is the article about .po files, the .po redirect should be retargeted there. I don't think a DAB page for Remote direct memory access and a half-dozen similar terms is justified. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waya Boy

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

Non-notable musician, disputed draftification. Potentially created by an author with a COI but no firm evidence so cannot be re-draftified without discussion at AfD. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet comments. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Merrony.

We do corrections, may not be notable enough but according to the few sourcs that are prominent publications. Let us not delete this page.

nent Isong records (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Isong records (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Their are a few features from reputable sources from the country of the the subject but thier is evidence of online presence and the subject has been verified on several social media platforms hence consider editing the article that deleting it. Thanks Bobby Colhn. Dan Merrony (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dan Merrony (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I think it should not be deleted, we should make some correction though Marvokayz (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Marvokayz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. All sources are either promo pieces or self-published. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. I also cannot understand why the article creator created a mainspace article after already creating Draft:Waya Boy. I would also like the participation here of at least two other WP:SPA accounts to be noted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the MBU source that talks about this person, strikes me as a PR item. The rest of the sources used are youtube, a google search and music streaming sites. I'm not seeing notability for this person, appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carter (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gosling

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Leghari

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

Another hyperlocal politician who fails at WP:NPOLITICIAN as a small town MP, fails at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article does not demonstrate or verify his notoriety. Even the reference are of low reliability Jinnllee90 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has presumed notability under WP:NPOL and Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians as a member of a major subnational assembly, since Pakistan is a federal polity. Results can easily be verified at https://ecp.gov.pk/general-elections-2024 (apparently the results are stored in Google Drive?) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:NSUBPOL members of the provincial and territorial assemblies, including the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly, are presumed notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already mentioned, WP:NPOL is met. The circumstances of the nomination are also slightly suspicious. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also developing whether or not the politician Gunnar Norberg makes sense for him to exist on Wikipedia, I suppose Usama Leghari, does not meet the parameters of permanence here. Jinnllee90 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Difference being that Norberg was mayor of a town of 3,000 people, hardly notable comparatively, and was never a politician of a subnational party, while Leghari is. Procyon117 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of a provincial parliament in federal system, satisfies WP:NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an elected member of province assembly.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darron Brown

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After doing a search it appears that are a few sources that list him as a darts player and provide some stats but nothing to show notability or provide WP:SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Haywood

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Porter

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT do not appear to be met. In general terms, the only sources I can find are directory-style entries like this (which appear to exist for every darts player that ever played in any tournament - and doesn't represent in-depth/biographical of the subject themselves). In terms of the "claims to notability" in the text (reputedly won the Irish Masters and Kent Masters in early 2000s), I can find no sources of any kind to support this. (When the article was created it seemed to be based entirely on a scan of one page of a brochure (a form of match program?) published by/for the organisers of the 2006 BDO World Darts Championship. Even if this program were still available (and it doesn't seem to be online or in any library anywhere), a directory-style entry in a single tournament program also likely wouldn't represent in-depth of significant coverage.) Note: While I'd personally like to be able to propose redirection (as WP:ATD-R), I cannot conceive of an appropriate target... Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Riddler: Secrets in the Dark

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

I can't find anything on this besides casting announcements which I don't think count for notability as a routine sort of source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an WP:ATD this could be merged or redirected to Batman Unburied. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellman's Cave

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

No WP:SIGCOV. No reliable sources, and my WP:BEFORE didn't find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best that I can find is an article in a web site of abandoned locations and this, which is a kind of tourist guide. The remainder that I found had copied the WP article. Nothing comes up that is a reliable source. I don't know if it would make sense to link to either of these from the entry in the List of caves in Gibraltar. None of the caves there have references. Lamona (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bourguignon

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

Suspected hoax. No information found under the name Jean Bourguignon or Jean-Jules Bourguignon. Creator did no other work beyond adding him to a list of inventors. Also likely not the first person to invent the first remote control toy car or radio alarm clock as those histories are reasonably well documented and have no mention of him. Cannot find sources for the claimed medal from the Salon des Inventeurs either. Article has been unreferenced since its creation in December 2007 and was originally tagged as such in March 2008, with the date updated in March 2011. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent any sources. The English credits him with the "the first perpetual movement watch" and the Dutch with the first "solar-powered" watch. Apparent hoax. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything in .be sources about an inventor, there's a comic illustrator [17] with the same name, but much younger... I don't see sources that would let us keep this. Unsure if it's a hoax, but it doesn't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Bay Cave

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

I see now evidence of notability. Unlike many caves in this area, it isn't an archeological site, and I couldn't find any wp:sigcov Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commission on Combating Corruption

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

There is no reliable sourcing in this article. One of many articles imported by Azerbaijani editors into English Wikipedia that just stenograph the propaganda of the authoritarian regime without any reliable sourcing. Thenightaway (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because there aren't any reliable sources on the page doesn't mean they don't exist, and isn't really an argument against notability. Per WP:BEFORE you have to check for them if you're doing an AFD. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Some independent (mostly Western government or NGO) sources exist: [18], [19]. Not sure if those count as significant coverage, however. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources that say nothing substantive about this government program. Thenightaway (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Montenegrin Women's League

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

Contested draftification. Entirely unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Isolated editions of women's competitions rarely have WP:GNG on their own. Svartner (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner. The level of women's football is low, resulting in significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFK National Educational Camp

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

Contested draftification. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kosovo. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FC Hajvalia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zulmarys Sánchez

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

The article mentions Sanchez was a semi-finalist in the Olympics, but there's nothing that mentions winning a medal there. According to the categories, she did win a silver medal in the Pan American Games, but the ultimate issue is sourcing; I only found database results in the WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Venezuela. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. Sánchez's silver medal at the 2007 Pan American Games can be confirmed here:[20]. It was in the women's K-4 500 metres canoeing category (Canoeing at the 2007 Pan American Games). Other examples of independent coverage include the following: [21][22][23]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guideline says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Where exactly is the significant coverage in any of those sources that you've linked? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, the article was not ready at all shape. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article lacks citations, contains insufficient information, and has numerous flaws. It is not adequately developed or reliable enough for the mainspace in its current state, and it does not conform to what Wikipedia stands for. Furthermore, it fails to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for creating an article. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its still lacks of coverage, information as well as references and citation, not ready for mainspace...when using the article for creation and submission, many articles were declined. However, it is very upsetting to see this one published despite its clear flaws. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1,2 to 3 sources is not enough to cover the one sentence article and as you visit the publisher its not notable and reputable enough and Wikipedia doesn't support any of those. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No news articles about this person that I can find, only databases, and WP:SPORTSPERSON is actually the reason why it shouldn't be kept. Procyon117 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Indeed its not notable enough to pass Wikipedia standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm pretty certain I will be able to expand this bio to WP standards - editors who know my work will know that Olympian stubs and Venezuelan stubs are an area of expertise and this is both - but don't have the time right now. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People with English-language browsers will as a rule be shown fewer foreign-language results, so if people are wanting to look for potential sources it would be useful to include some Spanish. The general Spanish word for canoe as a sport is piragüismo, though in Venezuela it is more common to use canotaje, and adding either or both of those to a browser search for her name will probably deliver more than just her name. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George's Bottom Cave

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

Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Create a new section there for Tina's Fissure, this cave, and Levant Cave. Not notable independently, and only found coverage from blogs or passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has one paragraph of coverage, found here: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/20769321/upper-rock-nature-reserve-a-management-and-action-plan. Not enough to justify an independent article, should still be merged. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoplet

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be WP:SALT ed as well. Multiple creations were deleted. BryceM2001 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 in Croatian television

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

Unsourced for years, but someone cared enough to attempt to draftify it, so a PROD nomination might be questionable.

I'm going to try to do a "bundled" AfD here in a moment, nominating different year in Croatian television. Wish me luck, and I'd appreciate your patience if I mess up. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Croatia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also nominated the following articles, for the same reason as stated in the original nomination:

1971 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 in Croatian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note that 1994 in Croatian television has been redirected to a merged page due to a discussion I was unaware of. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses, If me moving them to draft space is the only reason to not "PROD" (simplified deletion?), should I blank + redirect the others to the merged pages as User: Hey man im josh suggested? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to decades – These have mostly already been merged into decades, because they are nearly empty, or completely empty, but the combined decades were enough for a stub. I moved them to draft space as I merged them, but User: Hey man im josh moved them back to main space because they were too old to draftify. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain I was going to agree to withdraw my nomination if you did this, but then a power outage happened, and I then enjoyed a few hours of being off the computer. courtesy ping to Hey man im josh. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to redirect instead of delete, even for the empty pages like 1994 in Croatian television, is that there's a template {{Years in TV by country}} that links to the years, for most of the other countries the individual years are enough for a page. Ireland is the only one with pages for the decades, but they're just lists of years, e.g. 1970s television in Ireland… actually 1970s in Irish television. Maybe it's worth checking other word orders for the other countries), but decade lists are probably not worth making for the others. Simplest option is to redirect the years few countries that are combined in decades. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to explain my hesitance to nominate these articles for a PROD deletion: PROD deletion is designed for abandoned articles, and these certainly weren't abandoned, as evidence by your draftification. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I misunderstood how draft space works. Josh explained on my talk page, before that I didn't know there are time limits on drafts. I thought moving them to draft space was the right thing to do with the scrappy stubs that are not enough for a page, for if somebody wanted to expand them years later. Redirects to the merged page seem like the right option for what I was trying to do? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain Right, you seem to be redirecting, so I'm wondering if Hey man im josh will note my withdrawing of the nominations? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Liz's reply, I think we're going to just let this one play out with the, hopefully, inevitable result of redirecting to decade articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, totally fine you didn't know, that happens. That's why I monitor draftifications, to help make people aware of it :) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses, I have reverted the articles that were changed to Redirects which was improper after this AFD discussion was started. The editor can come here and argue for Redirection if that is the outcome they seek. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Normally, I agree with your AfD decisions. I actually also agree with not redirecting a page nominated for AfD most of the time. With this specific decision, though, it appears like you're just doing procedures for procedures sake, and I have concerns that this is not in compliance with the fifth pillar. It just seems like there's a snowballs chance of Hell of any other outcome than "redirect" happening, which is why I'm offering to withdraw the nomination, something I'm normally allowed to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz That's what I did, above, I thought we came to the conclusion that this is what should be done? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I redirected one before the nominator responded – there were two discussions happening at the same time in different places, one here and one on my talk page, I was following the advice from my talk page – but I left the notice above the redirect and I think I waited before doing the rest of the list. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Metal Brain Liz sometimes takes a while to respond to messages, but they have popped up on my watchlist, so should reply to us shortly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to decades articles, which Industrial Metal Brain has been working at. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Calaway

AfDs for this article:

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

before search doesn't bring up much. Most searches mention her in articles only as the ex-wife of The Undertaker. Should probably be either deleted or merged to The Undertaker's page. Was also merged in 2007 after a discussion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. CptViraj (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article uses unreliable sources, except for TheHistoryOfWWF which just hosts recaps of TV shows. Besides being Mark Calaway's ex-wife, she did make a handful of onscreen appearances with him during The Invasion storyline. It was a relatively minor role in the scheme of things, if they could not find sufficient sources in 2007 then I do not think we will have any better luck this time. Her connection to The Undertaker (onscreen and offscreen) doesn't make her notable, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this borders on BLP1E; she was involved in one WWE storyline because of her husband, but is otherwise low-profile and not the subject of substantial coverage. I have no opinion on a redirect to The Undertaker. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [24], [25] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [26]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoauthoritarianism (China)

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

Poster-child for WP:TNT - the article, as it stands, is a substantial WP:COATRACK which is rife with WP:SYNTH that attempts to conflate Neoauthoritarianism (xīn quánwēi zhǔyì) with Neoconservativism (xīn bǎoshǒu zhǔyì) largely on the basis of a single book from 2008. This has led to an article which has been tagged as "reading like a personal essay" since March of this year. Neoauthoritarianism is an actual historical ideology that might warrant a page but this page, as it is right now, does not address that topic, instead being a clearing house for the WP:POV assertion that Chinese government is right-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree with your argument, and even if your argument is assumed to be correct, there is no reason for the article to be removed from Wikipedia. Neoauthoritarianism is an existing political ideology and is an article that is listed without any problems in Chinese Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Pro-KMT just tried to add Slajoz Zizek commentaries on Deng as a fascist... I don't have any problem with Zizek personally but I'm not sure it belong here, other people would have to comment. I'll try to review these changes some time...FourLights (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservativism was merged into this article on the basis that, based on our sources, one developed into the other. I mostly put together Neoauthoritarianism one, other people decided to merge neoconservativism into this one. Part of your request is just re-write. I don't have any objection to working on this page again - and I certainly am capable of great labors - but this isn't a great time for me to put a lot into it, and it's not the only article I would be working on cleaning. It doesn't mean that it can't happen, it just hasn't been a priority.FourLights (talk)

If you personally believe that Neoconservativism is distinct and should be seperated into another page again, then you might contribute material to establish this distinction, and why they don't belong as page. I don't know. One developed into the as far as people who put them together know. Sinology is a limited subject in the west, although it can be developed there is often a scarcity of materials. Sources in another language might be end up being needed, I don't speak other languages, but I do enjoy translating them. FourLights (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do contend that neoconservativism is distinct from neoauthoritarianism which, according to most reliable sources fell out of favor with the CPC after the Tiananmen Square incident. Furthermore, things like the Zizek quote, the use of the WP:FRINGE Hageback book, the regular use of citations to support statements not in those citations (see the Zheng, Yongnian citation in the lede for an early example), and the over-reliance on the Chris Bramnal book that was published during the Hu administration to comment on phenomena that the article tries to tie to the current Xi administration are why I say that the dramatic step of WP:TNT is needed here. This article is a giant coatrack as it stands. About the only thing worth keeping here is the name. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and blow it up along with Pro-KMT's template, I can try to revive it later. Since I haven't read your purported sources, I have no idea what you're talking about with regards the distinctions, but Pro-KMT has gone loony with the article anyway. When I do try to revive it, it might involve an additional source, but probably not the one's haven't named since I don't know about them.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send me a link where I read everything that's been done here over the last several months after you blow it up. In case it turns out anything good was contributed.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BATHWATER. Parts with WP:COAT should be trimmed down, but that is not a good argument for wholesale deletion. - Amigao (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-KMT has created a template, spamming it all over the places. If Neo-authoritarian has that kind of scope, the article doesn't have that kind of development. Why is there a neo-authoritarianism template spammed all over the place. The original article I had may have been "written like an essay" and needed some fixing but it was at least intended to be academic. Fixing it up will take time I don't have as much of right now.FourLights (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Simon had some additional sources, including ones that distinguish neoauthoritarianism and neo-conservativism, I would be able to put together a new article(s) some time more easily. Currently it is complained it doesn't have enough source material and that the two are conflated. I can't do anything with that, and pro-KMT comes in with materials speculating about people being fascist. If someone else has knowledge they need to step in with relevant information when they can or I'm just wasting time. I'm not putting much effort into this until it's resolved. I already made an article with the limited information I had.FourLights (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag me in the below discussion so i can get my quickest reponse possible out to you.

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle. Additionally no passenger or exterior fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per my comments at the 1st AfD discussion, a mere 2 months ago. A second AfD is not justified at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Oppose a speedy close. This was a minor accident with zero fatalities and only two people with minor injuries. There is nothing encyclopedic about this event. We need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple kinds of sources to prove long-term significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FYI We've had bus and plane crashes with multiple deaths get deleted in the past for this reason. Many vehicular accidents of all kinds happen every day around the world. We don't include them unless they have lasting significance that is not WP:ROUTINE news coverage immediately after the event.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um… That fallacy doesn’t apply here. I’m not pointing at other existing articles. How does this article meet WP:EVENTCRIT?4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No fatalities, yes, but this does appear to have been a case of a scheduled airline flight that resulted in the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um… that is not a policy based argument under any notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. This consensus is an informal WP:AV tradition that's not firmly backed by any actual notability guideline, and there's a distinct tendency towards WP:RECENTISM in its use. I think we need to move away from it. Carguychris (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris Nonsense. WP:AV is a WikiProject. It doesn't have the power to establish policy nor record community consensus opinions at AFD. We have a page for recognized WP:COMMONOUTCOMES and WP:SNGs to record policy backed WP:CONSENSUS notability opinions that are allowed to be used at AFD. Vaguely waving to a small WikiProject doesn't set the precedent you think it does. There is no established consensus for loss of hull accidents at AFD. And frankly if WP:AV wants to push that they need to go through an WP:RFC like all the other COMMONOUTCOMES entries/SNGs have done before it carries any weight. That means going through the formal community vetting process and getting that formally written into a notability or deletion guideline page. Only then can a credible claim of a community consensus guideline be made. My guess is any RFC of this nature would fail easily and rapidly, as the community as a whole has widely supported WP:EVENTCRIT and its application to accidents of any kind. 4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my post. I'm agreeing with you! I think we need to move away from it—"it" being this informal, groundless notion within WP:AV that any hull loss of a large, modern airliner is somehow automatically notable enough for a standalone article. Yes, such events inevitably attract news coverage, but as Aviationwikiflight correctly points out below, arguing notability using only day-after news coverage and the inevitable, statutorily-required government incident report flies in the face of WP:EVENTCRIT #4, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. Carguychris (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. Sorry I reversed what you said somehow. lol The whole green text thing threw me off. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance since none of the sources I've found had in-depth coverage of the event since the said coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what was contained in the final report without any analysis. Alternatively, a merge to Caspian Airlines#Accidents and incidents is also a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mahshahr Airport and Caspian Airlines as appropriate. Per nom and Aviationwikiflight, this accident lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. Carguychris (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event had in depth coverage worldwide by independent sources and has a WP:lasting effect with improved safety regulations so an accident like this can be prevented in the future, including 9 safety recommendations (three to the Iran Civil Aviation Organization, four to Caspian Airlines one to Mahshahr Airport and IRI aerodrome). So article meeting all aspects of WP:Event. 38.87.93.147 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)— 38.87.93.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Issuing recommendations after an aviation accident is common practice so whether or not an event had lasting effects needs to be demonstrated. Whilst there was coverage of the aftermath of the event, there doesn't seem to be any significant or in-depth coverage of what happened to the flight and how. Additionally, the lack of continued coverage in secondary sources that also provide significant and in-depth coverage of the event seems to be completely lacking, so this event doesn't meet all aspects of WP:N(E). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please examine whether the coverage in RS justifies a standalone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACP Rail International

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

Not finding sources which get us over the WP:NCORP hurdle. Finding some trivial mentions (e.g. [27]). TWL only gives [28], which is not enough for an article. Of the sources in the article: I can't find the Ruggia source, the Dineen source is a trivial mention, and the third one is a press release from the company itself.

It also appears this article was created by a paid editor – User:Acprail. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karma - When Destiny Strikes Back

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

No sources meeting WP:SIGCOV or even minimally satisfying WP:NFSOURCES have been found, fails WP:GNG. The provided sources offer only trivial mentions of the movie. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Odisha. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anubhav_Mohanty#Filmography: or to List of Odia films of 2024 (but the latter does not exist yet (although it would be useful; see category; and the first mentions the film) (https://www.mycitylinks.in/ollywoods-dussehra-dhamaka-2024 ; https://www.orissapost.com/four-odia-flicks-to-clash-at-box-office/ for verification) -Mushy Yank. 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

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

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

Korea until 1948
North Korea since 1948
South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Star FC

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

Fails WP:GNG. Club only existed for one season and does not have WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Demt1298 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small Talk (EP)

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

A user recreated this page two months after it was redirected by Donaldd23 in September 2024 and said "Putting this through AfD is better than just redirecting it." Well, here's putting it through AfD. MNEK's first EP is simply not notable. I can't find any usable reviews or news sources on this really, and it didn't chart, even if a few of its included singles did. Total fail of WP:NALBUMS in all senses. Ss112 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNEK per above. Redirect is preferred AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the throne of Liechtenstein

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

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Liechtenstein. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Greek throne

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

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuolivier Iwamoto

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

Creator is globally locked. Not remotely indicating that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is met. Never played on a notable level. 0 J League games, 0 cup games. Played some school matches before retiring; why he retired is described by himself in the Nikkan Sports source in the Japanese Wikipedia. Bunshun described him starting to work in a bank, but he does not meet business bio inclusion criteria. Geschichte (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl losing quarterbacks

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

Topic is not independently notable, essentially trivia, and is already included in List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. This is an unnecessary content fork as everything is already covered in the target article. Also fails WP:NLIST with no coverage specifically of losing QBs as a group (only thing I could find was the an AI-generated Statmuse page already in the article). Frank Anchor 14:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get what you mean it's just a lot of the data provided in my article, other than the list itself, is nowhere on wikipedia. None of the winning percentages, data, nothing. While it may be considered trivia in your eyes, so is most of the list of super bowl starting quarterbacks. It is also simply interesting data for some football fanatics. It may not necessarily need deletion either, and could go as an insertion into the list of super Bowl quarterbacks article, not in it's entirety, but somewhat. Take the interesting statistics section, add some other undefeated QB's in there, and voila. RSWC65onYT (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Duplicative and unnecessary content fork. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koosha Toofan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Nothing on a before. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn since 2010. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has no claim of importance, and the references do not demonstrate notability. The World Physique magazine interview is the best source, and I'm not sure it should be counted at all for GNG; the other sources are worse. A Google search finds nothing other than his personal website (with a biography that differs substantially from this one) and Wikipedia derivatives. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 13:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Economic Miracle

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

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is draftify not an option? There may be opportunities to improve this article in the future if independent reviews are forthcoming. Reconrabbit 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, with books like this if it hasn't gotten reviews by now I would be surprised if it did, so at that point it just just seems like a backdoor deletion. But sure if that's the route people want to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - not separately notable or not detailed enough. There might be another article suitable to merge it in to though.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said "draftify", but I can see a back and forth on perspectives of this book. It's been talked about by news talking heads, as far back as September. In fact, the closer to the election, the more we heard about how Trump's pro-growth policies "fueled unprecedented growth and prosperity". The news media viewed this book according to however they already viewed Trump. That aspect is unlikely to change. But I'm not sure Wikipedia needs an article on it. — Maile (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No objection to someone working on this in draft space provided it go through draft review successfully before being moved back to main space. Reviews in business journals (by that I mean academic ones we can use not trade journals) might still happen, as those kind of reviews often appear later. It may end up dying in draft space if refs can’t be located and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season

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

Her season is still at least a few weeks away, and as of now, the article is very barebones with no real information or sources. Liam Korda 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Belarus and Lists. Liam Korda 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now per WP:CRYSTALBALL, this tennis season is likely to be a notable one, but we can't possibly know for sure until the season actually begins. Iffy★Chat -- 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Can be moved back to mainspace when first match ~~close to starting~~ underway. Procyon117 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proven evidence shown the notability of the topic. Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - as others have said, we need for the season to at least start before we can determine whether it's going to be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Masi

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and no coverage. No band article as atd. References are extremely poor. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching only yields passing mentions of him in local coverage of charity events and websites for small venue performances. No music reviews or anything. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Glad to see the substantial improvement. (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Man with Two Faces (1975 film)

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

Completely unsourced since creation 16 years ago, fails WP:V. Virtually no content either. Prod removed without any improvement or attempt at sourcing on the basis of "Coverage in the Korean language" - yet the Korean article is nearly identical to this article and sourcing consists of two deadlinks, one to a database. Does not appear to meet WP:NFP which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll see if someone at the Korea WikiProject can search for sourcing. Offhand I am seeing the film mentioned quite a bit in Korean language sourcing (thank you Google Translate!) so there's a good possibility that the movie is notable. Not a guarantee, mind you, which is why I want someone more fluent in the language to search. If this is notable, then I have a feeling that the sources may be ones I can't use a translation app on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone familiar with Korean and Korean language sources can take a look, I saw the film mentioned here, here. I don't know if the sources are usable or not - I'm running into the aforementioned issue. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Copying over from my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Help finding sources?:
Here's some coverage in sources considered reliable by WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources:

https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/74/1663 - review/retrospective on the film
https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/10/5427 - discusses the Frankenstein narrative of the film
https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201909201405360300 - Article discussing 100 years of Korean cinema, director Lee Yong-min's love of horror films and how this film is the Korean adaptation of Frankenstein
https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20140227_0012753607 - Film included in an exhibition by the Korean Film Archive highlighting the best villains in Korean films
https://www.kmdb.or.kr/story/154/4714 - Same as above, an exhibition on "Korea's greatest villains" by the Korean Film Archive
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20140227189300005 - Similar coverage as above
https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/02/27/2014022704170.html - Similar coverage as above
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20061228186000041 - Restoration of the film by Korean Film Archive (among other films) over a three year period, then exhibited by the Archive
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20180517077700005 - In this article an author (Kwak Jae-sik) is discussing how he watches old/"failed" films and uses this film for writing inspiration
https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/movie/181500.html - Another article on the film's restoration by Korean Film Archive
https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/society/science-news/2018/05/16/20180516023004 - This is one of those "sci-fi is becoming reality" pieces about "memories by injection" - snails are taught sensory responses, then their RNA is extracted, and implanted into other snails, and they find the sensory responses transfer. The article references that it is similar to a plot point in the film where the memories of a corpse are transplanted into the main character.

Easily enough coverage there, and its inclusion in the Korean Film Archive means it meets criteria #4 in WP:NFO at the very least, and likely #2 as well for being selected as a film that portrays the greatest Korean villains, and additionally meets #2 by being screened in a festival by the Archive in 2006 and 2014. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RachelTensions! I'll try and flesh out the article later with these sources! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is actually something that might need to be changed. I can't see where this was ever officially released to the English speaking market. Several sites have this listed by the article name, but none of them ever give any info about when or where it was released. IMDb mentions a UK and US release, but anyone can edit and add info to that site so it's hardly a RS. So far the strongest source that could be used to back up the English title is AllMovie, which does list an editor rating - but no release info other than the original 1975 date for South Korea. That points towards a release likely existing, but it's still not great.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an unofficial title, as I was able to find some bootleg sites for the movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources presented by RachelTensions prove notability requirements are met. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would note that a lot of the sources cited above, although reliable, are IMO a bit shaky from a WP:SIGCOV standpoint - that is, it is not clear to me that they address the topic sufficiently directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. But overall I think there is ample coverage to meet the GNG. And just to add to the pile from the scholarly side of things, this article has about 5 pages of critical analysis, and this one has a bit more than that. I think there is ample material for an article here. -- Visviva (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn with the only remaining delete opinion struck. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly J. Stoeltje

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

Fails WP:NPROF. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and no indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. GS citations look moderate, in what must be relatively low-citation fields. There's detailed coverage of some of her research in JSTOR 48653856 and possibly in JSTOR j.ctt175758p.23, JSTOR j.ctt9qhh6t.9, JSTOR 10.2307/j.ctv1jf2cpk.13, JSTOR j.ctt24hz78.12, JSTOR 10.2307/jj.14491732.10 & JSTOR /j.ctt80pj4.6. (all books that are preview only) plus some short reviews of her edited books, but with 147 JSTOR hits it's hard to see which might be significant. Not seeing a pressing need to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her CV is here. (There is mention of a second authored book in preparation in 2022, but I can't find evidence of publication.) There is also an appreciation of her work by a colleague, at her retirement, and an oral history interview with some indept introductory material from a different university. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also three or four pages of discussion on her work in Sara L. Spurgeon. Exploding the Western: Myths of Empire on the Postmodern Frontier (only first page is previewable). Espresso Addict (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot in Olaf Hoerschelmann. Rules of the Game: Quiz Shows And American Culture. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I'm seeing nontrivial GS citations, but even in a low citation field I'm looking for a little stronger record on the highest cited publications. I believe this to be a "book field", but I see at most one authored book, and I didn't find any reviews. I do not put much weight on particular citations to her work. The article is a well put-together stub, and I agree about no pressing need to delete, but I'm also not yet seeing a pass of any notability criteria. Watching in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe Are you sure this is a book field? There seem to be several flourishing academic journals in this area. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many fields where the main routes to impact flow through books do have academic journals. I could be wrong here about the field, but I am still seeing citations that look scant to establish notability, and nothing else that passes the average professor test. FWIW, subject's CV is here [29]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote; still looks a bit marginal to me, but I certainly don't feel strongly enough to block withdrawal of nomination. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 WP:NACADEMIC. She does have a large number of citations for a small citation field. In addition to the sources found by Espresso Addict, her research is cited in several literature reviews as important in google books. These include: "Feminist Approaches to Folklore" in American Folk Lore: An Encyclopedia, Fieldwork and the Self: Changing Research Styles in Southeast Asia, "Festivals" in The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Music and Culture, "Folklore" in The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia, and "Feminist Perspectives in Folklore Scholarship" in Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art, Second Edition.. She also referenced in the chapters "Assessing Tourism Goals" in I'm Feeling the Blues Right Now: Blues Tourism and the Mississippi Delta, "Modernity in Folklore" in The Passeggiata and Popular Culture in an Italian Town: Folklore and the Performance of Modernity, "The Present" in Charrería Mexicana: An Equestrian Folk Tradition, "His Life and Work" in The Legacy of Américo Paredes. The "Overview Essay" in Encyclopedia of Women's Folklore and Folklife describes her as one of the "official foremothers of feminist folkloristics" on page lxvi.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is more than borderline notable now. More so even. Generally if there is a oral history interview, which i've seen with other folk, e.g. holocaust survivors, which I didn't see here when I did the before- it tends to show a level of importance within a certain group within society that indicates notability which is not always visible and that combined with the various book editions that have been surfaced and the citation count, is more than enough I think. I think if everybody is ok with it, I can withdraw this. scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn The subject is notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Serie A broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability of this topic has not changed since the last AFD 6-7 months ago. It still falls foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would support WP:SALTing this to prevent another re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Italy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not deemed to have standalone notability here (straight lift from itwiki which can set their own inclusion standards) and already deleted recently only to re-appear due to the page title being 'freed'. Crowsus (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's important to note that it's not a direct recreation. There was a request for speedy deletion which was denied by Asilvering saying decline WP:G4, text greatly expanded from deleted version, no longer just a list, would need new discussion. Therefore the recreation isn't due to the page title being 'freed', but rather the creator would seem to think the expansion is enough for it to be notable enough to stand currently (also see what Claudio Fernag wrote on the talk page: This page should not be speedily deleted because the article is no substantially identical to the deleted version. The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters like when it was deleted, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. The same happened with the article List of La Liga broadcasters, which at first was just a table with a list of broadcasters. It was nominated for deletion, more information was added to give it more notability and it was finally kept). --SuperJew (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough, but to be fair I couldn't see the original version for comparison. Crowsus (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I also agree with nomination, I feel this is not the right type of material we should be having on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but rename to "Serie A in media", "Serie A broadcasting", "Serie A on television" or similar, not opposed to Draftify until quality concerns are met. Strongly opposed to salting. The article is not in a great state and is clearly based on / inspired by the it:wiki article which is IMO in need of some editing to trim it down. Nonetheless, the notability is clearly there, and this should be the "expansion/detailed article" corresponding to the TV rights section of the Serie A article. There is repeated coverage of TV rights negotiations, impacts on viewers and commentary on current status of TV rights in the main Italian newspapers of record (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). There is more specialized work to analyze the landscape in niche publications / sources (which should naturally be reviewed to ensure they pass RS), such as 6, 7 (also independently published as a book, which may be better for referencing), 8, 9, 10 (appears to be a very good source, published by Taylor & Francis), 11... Research papers on this topic also exist, however I don't know if they meet our quality requirements: 12 and 13 published when Serie A TV rights were being renewed in 2005, 14, 15, 16... As well as theses (again, to check if RS is met): 17, 18. Shazback (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep am I missing something? This isn't the same article, and it seems to clearly pass WP:GNG with those Italian language articles above. We don't gatekeep if something is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE clearly does not apply here, which is for upcoming shows on specific networks. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't look like WP:SUSTAINED coverage to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources already in the article that span 20 years of coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be sufficient for WP:SUSTAINED? In 1995, half-page on page 4 of La Stampa regarding the TV rights sales of Serie A and B La Stampa 31 Oct. 1995 p.4, 2010 editorial article and analysis in La Repubblica on how TV rights sales affect the league to optimize commercial revenues La Repubblica 3 Mar. 2010 online, unknown if published... See the links above in addition... What type of sources would satisfy this aspect of the notability guideline? Shazback (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to GiantSnowman, IgnatiusofLondon, TimothyBlue, SpacedFarmer as they participated in the previous AfD. Shazback (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article appears impressive, but is very poorly written and sourcing is inadequate to show notability of this topic. Giant Snowman 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing should be improved, not deleted. Regarding the sourcing, can you expand as two editors above have explained in detail how there is enough sourcing. --SuperJew (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serie A#Television rights – No need for a fork, as decided in similar AfD in the past. If there is relevant content, simply add it to this section. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article can be improved, it is notable enough as shown by editors above and shouldn't be deleted. Summarising and merging is a possible alternative, though it seems to me that there is enough content for a standalone page. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecules by year of discovery

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

This article is highly inaccurate and misleading as of right now. It is also rather impossible to make a list of molecules by year of discovery, even if it were to be constrained to the 19th century. The contents of the theories of molecules, discovery of aromaticity, etc. is much better described elsewhere. Perhaps should at least be merged into History of molecular theory. Pygos (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very hard list to handle. The current list contains a very strange and random selection of molecules. Given the millions of known molecules (Chemspider contains 100,000,000+) our list needs to be selective. We could make it a navigational list of wiki-notable molecules, but we have a truly enormous number of articles on individual molecules, and most readers will be searching by criteria other than year-of-discovery, so it would be a pretty unhelpful list. We could more usefully make it a curated list of molecules whose discovery was a historical stepping-stone, such as benzene. But to do that, we need a proper discussion of the inclusion-criteria before we make the list. So for the moment, delete the list, but if anyone wants a list, start a discussion somewhere about how to do it. I would have no objection to converting my keep to a blank-and-discuss if such things exist. I don't think we're allowed to draftify as the current list is too old. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is the creator of this list seriously suggesting that Umeclidinium bromide is the only significant molecule discovered in the 21s century? More generally "a very strange and random selection of molecules" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There were already users who agreed via prod, prod2, and the creator's redirection that that is an unworkable list. So it's rather absurd that an RFD with three delete votes resulted in this being restored instead just to waste time rediscussing the obvious. Reywas92^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost infinitely expandable list, and anyway, important milestones in the history of chemistry can be better organized than just a database-dump of molecules ordered by year of discovery. That's just trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Teja

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

Sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject; they only offer passing mentions and quotes, quotes are WP:PRIMARY and don’t contribute towards notability. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If there is any spamming, we will not reach this page here. If there is any deficiency in the citation, another editor will correct it.

If not, I would suggest moving this page to Draft, if only to give this page a chance to improve.WP:DRAFTIFY WikiMoob (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’m opposed to draftifying this article because I see no potential for the subject in the future. I don’t think it will meet notability in the near future, but if it does, it can be recreated. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrick Cycles

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this English company. (Not to be confused with Warrick Cycles of Springfield, Massachusetts, which is only a little bit less unnotable.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrick cycles resulted in a dubious keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. Very little has changed since the last nomination and I suspect the user who originally created the article also has some involvement with the company. Ajf773 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is now entirely unsourced. Run of the mill company, not notable. The article is 10+ years old and can't even say when the company was founded. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kothe

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

The subject has only held non-notable positions, such the mayor and corporator of a small city. A BEFORE search returns results related to election preparations, which are routine and lack significant independent coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This had been mentioned in the original version, which was edited by other contributors.

Premises:

1) The person in question(Mahesh Kothe) was a mayor 2) The Number of IT parks in India and rest of the world are in limited numbers. In India the number stands at 65.(Refer: https://stpi.in/en/about-stpi)

The first IT park in Solapur was brought up by Shri Mahesh Kothe, which is one of those (65 IT parks in India).

The aforementioned fact was mentioned in the original article.

Additional Read: https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124

Thank you Mohit Gandmal (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable position elected politician, fails to meet WP:NPOL, I guess the article is created because of the current Maharasthra legislative elections, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no multiple secondary reliable sources providing in-depth coverages. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GrabUP,

Thank you for the comment.

This was anticipated. But the Maharashtra elections have concluded yesterday, that's 20th-Nov-2024. And the article was published post that.

Hence, the given article will have zero impact on the election which has already ended.

Thank you,

Mohit Mohit Gandmal (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people who hold the notable position only as mayor & still have a Wikipedia are as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malti_Rai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Rajan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadwal_Vijayalakshmi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramila_Pandey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firhad_Hakim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Agarwal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junaid_Azim_Mattu

The person is question - Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project that is Solapur IT park.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Delhi, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I cannot find subject's work as corporator and politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request you to please explain, how a contribution as follows is not worthy of notice:

Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project which is Solapur IT park.

Read more about it at - https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124 Mohit Gandmal (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is a non-notable local politician who does not satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOL criteria. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moderator,

The following information has been added to the page.

Times of India being one of the most reliable source of information which satisfies all the parameters of WP:GNG i.e Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, following additional links have been added to the article from TOI:
1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/ncp-cautiousover-entry-ofsena-leaderfrom-solapur/articleshow/80176107.cms

2) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolhapur/solapur-sena-rebel-expelled-congress-leader-quits/articleshow/71547888.cms

3) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sharad-pawar-tweets-about-ex-sena-leader-joining-ncp-deletes-later/articleshow/80175184.cms

4) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2014/maharashtra-news/shindes-old-aide-is-pranitis-key-opponent-in-solapur/articleshow/44376337.cms

5) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telugu-vote-power-1-crore-influence-in-maharashtra-assembly-elections/articleshow/114631840.cms

6) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/bjp-sena-fails-predict-damage-caused-by-rebels/articleshow/71767635.cms

Please refer to the aforementioned links to find additional information on the subject, before making your decision. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:13, 21

Mohit Gandmal (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not equal "notable". And please stop repeating yourself, we saw your comment the first time. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy - WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA or WP:VAGUEWAVE or WP:VAGUEWAVES - deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the references reviewed, the subject currently qualifies as a local political figure, which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). The key points are as follows:

1. Local Leadership: The individual has not demonstrated a broad impact or influence beyond local politics, which is a prerequisite for meeting Wikipedia’s specific notability guidelines for politicians.

2. 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections: The subject participated in the ongoing elections, but the results are yet to be announced. If the individual wins and achieves significant influence or recognition, they might become notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines.

3. General Notability Criteria (WP:GNG): The subject does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements, which typically involve substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Thus, unless the election results or future accomplishments establish broader significance, the subject does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia entry. Baqi:) (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Asa Vines

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

Not notable business person. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software and Open Source Symposium

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources covered this event. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I conducted a WP: BEFORE and reached the same conclusion as the nominator. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq at the 1996 Summer Paralympics

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

Iraq isn't mentioned in [30] which shows the number of participants per country in the 1996 paralympics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Iraq. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this is a WP:HOAX as it never happened.4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to 1996 Summer Paralympics as ATD.~~ It's not a hoax, Iraq competed. Quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure, but there are definitely listings of Iraqi athletes on the offical website. The article itself is unreferenced and our coverage is so little/obscure that there's no point keeping an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, every Iraq match shown there is a DNS (which I assume stands for 'Did not Show'). No team member is shown for any of them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, MPGuy2824, I meant to mention that. I, too, assume DNS is Did not Show and wondered if there was some other story here (hard to find because the world was invented in 1996, as we all know). But they were certainly supposed to be there - hence my hedge of 'quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure'!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they were certainly supposed to be there Agreed, since matches seem to have been set with their athletes/teams.

Not sure about converting it to a redirect though, since it would be surprising to readers to be taken to a page with no mention. Hopefully, someone else comes up with a better idea. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a paragraph to explain reason of no participation of Iraqi delegation with sources added. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and fills that tiny lacuna I suspected all along. Not sure whether we're in keep or merge territory here, though. MPGuy2824 ??? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the sources, Faycal. "Delete" is definitely out of the question now. I'm leaning towards a weak Keep. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote accordingly, as I completely agree. 1996 for the win! Withdrawn by nom? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraq at the Paralympics. Utterly non-notable on its own, created solely to fill a gap in a series, but reasonable to include as a part of a larger topic. Geschichte (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do so disagree here. There's even a guideline which gives us signally clear guidance: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics" WP:NOLYMPICS. It's just as notable if they DON'T compete, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline that pertains to "nations participating at" is in no way "clear" guidance towards "nations not participating". Geschichte (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not terribly well reasoned. They were meant to participate, they pulled out. That's highly unusual. Their participation was therefore more newsworthy/noteworthy than if they had participated. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NOLYMPICS which suggests we should have articles on all teams to participate at the Olympics and Paralympics. We have never in the history of Wikipedia ruled against having one of these articles – i.e. we have a complete set of these and it should stay complete, and having an entire detailed paragraph about one event in the main article is very undue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The set would be equally complete even if it's all contained under one article title, i.e. several years are merged. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive in Podrinje (1993)

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

After removing unreliable local news portals etc, we are left with citations to two pages of the CIA history. I checked them, and all three of the citations failed verification, the only apparent reference to this fighting being a paragraph fragment as follows: "The VRS Drina Corps attacked again late in May and crushed Muslim forces in the salient , driving them back some 15 kilometers to the Praca River and eliminating the threat to Visegrad . Follow - on attacks from Cajnice in the southeast toward Gorazde itself , however , gained little ground . " on page 185. This isn't significant coverage, and therefore doesn't meet WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be clear i didnt put this sources but i think that this offensive is in one official book, i will try to find and add content in it, if its bad or not proper, then delete the whole thing (just please dont bring opera singer admins to blocc me like in smolucca) Wynnsanity (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't go to geography classes. Podrinje means "on the river Drina" or "next to the Drina" and thus includes the entire region. at the same time, I checked your claims and of course they are fake, if you had entered and edited the pages without bad intentions, you would have seen that on page 186 it is written "The Bosnian Serbs had nevertheless achieved most of their 1993 objectives in the Drina valley and This time Muslim bravery alone was not enough to prevail against the stronger, better organized and better led Serb troops. The text is badly written and the sources are in the wrong place, but I won't say anything because I understand everything about you and I don't want to be blocked because I love Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to allow me to only summarize the entire Balkan Battlegrounds article here as I did before, I would appreciate it, thank you Sir Wynnsanity (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep adding material to articles that is clearly not supported by the sources, then you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I’m not sure what it is you think you are doing, but it is extremely unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Please stop doing it, either through this account, meat puppets or IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? 1) I only use this account, the fact that other users are not satisfied with you is your problem 2.) I wrote a text that only appears in Balkan Battl. 3.) you have no arguments and never had any 2A00:10:9910:4C01:193C:197E:5B6B:E8CC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They say, from an IP. With regards especially to your last point, please remember not to make personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[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 Draftify‎. This is a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the needs of the creating editor who has realised their error in moving this to mainspace too early. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means this is the next step unless someone chooses to perform WP:HEY. This BLP lacks sufficient references of the quality required in order to reman here. I am not persuaded that Finokalioti passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NSINGER, nor WP:BIO as presented. This may simply be WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Television, Theatre, Greece, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please write me in simple engish without wiki links if possible what is the problem now?? When I submitted the article I got a notice for IMDb links...so I replace ALL these links with others...What do I have to do now to keep my article on wiki air?? Georgelgreco (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgelgreco, That information is on your user talk page. This is really not the venue to write you an instruction manual. This venue is for the discussion of retention or deletion of the article. I, and doubtless others, will discuss this with you thereunto here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me tell you this....Eleanna Finokalioti is a Greek actress, singer and performer who works for 5 years in USA with Artistic O-1B visa. O-1B is for: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television industry. For 5 years USA country believes that she has the right to stay and work as a performer here...So for USA immigration services she is eligible to stay and present her talent and her work...and for Wikipedia she is not eligible to present her work here?? Sorry this is unfair..... Georgelgreco (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also she is an Actor's Equity Union member....I have the proof of that and proofs for whatever I say Georgelgreco (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco In simple English, you created this situation by moving the draft to Mainspace without it being ready to be an article. Awaiting a further review would have been wiser, when all this would have been worked out with you. I have no objection to a consensus based draftification, but it cannot now be done without consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I understand what you mean..When I finished with major changes about IMDb links, I had to resend the article for reviewing and not for publishing...BUT I press publish because I read in that page this phrase: If you believe you resolve the problem then press publish... And if you read and check the new links, I replace everything, so I resolved the problem, I think.. Georgelgreco (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco Then I suggest you create a new line here, and used boldface font for the word "Draftify" and state in ordinary fine "Published by my own error" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Published by my own error Georgelgreco (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR; WP:NSINGER per nom. Created by SPA. No objection to draftification, but doubt a) more sources are to be found (I didn't find 'em, in any case) and b) whether this won't just get bunged straight back into mainspace. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor has stated that they published this by their own error, and requested draftification. As proposer I am about to initiate a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the reasonable needs of the creating editor. I am content if editors with greater knowledge than mine choose to revert this action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ajemian

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

Non-notable former professional lacrosse player. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a blurb from high school. JTtheOG (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. as a g11. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Oriental Hotel

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

Ref-bombed advert for a non-notable hotel. Nothing to indicate notability. PamD 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Nigeria. PamD 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bauers

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former professional lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Connecticut, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matt Alrich

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former professional lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Francis

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng

that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also fair, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the franchise article. Coverage is not SUSTAINED and the incident could be covered with a sentence or two in the franchise article, if that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. The coverage is trivial, and doesn't have significant reception or analysis. I'd also support a redirect, but merge is a good compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[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 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!} 09:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Seatter

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has competed in low-level domestic and regional motorsport championships with limited to no success. Article reads as a promotional piece – name-dropping circuits raced at, fellow competitors and sponsors – and the user page of the original editor (User:Femaleracedriver) redirects to this article, indicating a WP:COI. Only two sources, one of which is a personal website, and an internet search reveals a lack of SIGCOV. MSportWiki (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Malaysia, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kassim Nassoro

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. None of the sources have in-depth coverage of Nassoro. The article is mostly based on a cricket database which per the 2022 RFC is not considered substantial coverage toward notability.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers as a valid WP:ATD that has been done for numerous other players who've played in minor T20I matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this AFD I agree redirect is a good option also. Shrug02 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Kimote

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources address the subject directly or in detail other than sports databases which have been deemed not relevant towards proving notability. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhik Patwa

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Tanzania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources for this player. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is, is short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezza Gaznavi

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources listed do not provideWP:SIGCOV. After doing a search it appears that are a few sources that list him as a player and provide some stats but nothing to show notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aritra Dutta

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. There's a professor Aritra Dutta but this ain't him. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Desai

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only, some match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yasim Murtaza

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. There would appear to be a lot of these very routine players with articles! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Mehmood

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. This could have been a batch nomination! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My google search didn't show sources to defend this, would have voted for draft Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin Coetzee

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Probably not the Martin Coetzee at University of Pretoria. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid (cricketer)

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Pakistan, and Bahrain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV as Abdul Majid, Abdul Majid Abbasi or Abdul Abbasi, all of which he has been known as by various platforms. However, still all listings/routine fixtures/short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talla Ndao

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

Having a career where he played 87 minutes in the Japanese leagues (22 minutes in the first, 22 in the second and 43 in the third), no notability is apparent. Quite the opposite, actually. How about the sources? It would require good sources for him to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. The ja:wiki have some primary sources and a Gekisaka article that barely mentions him. web.ultra-soccer.jp have several pieces which is WP:ROUTINE coverage in my view. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Senegal, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rakibul Hasan

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

Fails to meet significant coverage criteria. I PRODed this article but then discovered it had already been done in the past so am now AFDing it. Shrug02 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Bangladesh, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV, listings/routine fixtures only. What little MSM coverage there is comprises match stats and short bios listing teams/fixtures. Confusingly, there's also a Rakibul Hasan (cricketer, born 2002) out there who is no more notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

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

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could meet GNG and not PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added Fortune India's Most Powerful Women List reference, and other interview references. Subject passes WP:GNG as there seem to be sufficient WP:RS. Shiv989 (talk)
Comment. I don't believe WP:PROF is met by citations; if one removes the heavily co-authored papers the highest cited on GS is 13. I am concerned that this nomination is brought by a new editor, and that a previous prod was made by another new editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We don't usually put so much weight on the kind of listicle coverage as in Forbes. Apart from that, I see only press releases, the subject's own articles, and early career awards. Looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might be worth noting coverage, mostly in Indian press - [31], [32],[33], [34], [35], [36], [37].. --Shiv989 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 45 sources for a three-para article? Good grief. No, you're not getting a source analysis, but the sourcing is clearly (as has been noted extensively above) problematic. The awards are, not one of them, bluelinked. Fails WP:GNG - a lot of window dressing, clearly a talented individual, but we lack the substance required for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes that the subject was the recipient of awards from the International Astronautical Federation the Zonta International Foundation, MIT, and NASA, which should satisfy the second condition of WP:ACADEMIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of those awards are significant, ie: bluelinked... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above that subject meets WP:GNG with articles in Indian press including Mint reference that notes subject is the first Indian citizen to operate Mars rover. The article could use some cleanup. Removed some non-relevant references in article and stated reasoning. Nnev66 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above meets WP:GNG and also WP:ACADEMIC with Luigi G. Napolitano Award and publications. Referring to WP:ACADEMIC:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fortune's listing is enough for me, and there's a lot more than just that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, more on the basis of WP:GNG than WP:PROF. That sort of notability is not about whether she has the accomplishments to deserve the coverage she has been given; it is merely about what coverage there is and on how reliable and independent we take it to be. I place more credence in SSPI and in the Luigi G. Napolitano Award as being closer to the profession than, say, Fortune India, but regardless, I think there is enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Hassan

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

I created Draft:Priya Hassan and despite it being well sourced, it was rejected at AfC. Now a different user, recreated the draft topic but as an article albeit with barely any sources and only 1 reliable source. The draft was deleted but I requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. All of the sources on the draft were interviews mostly.

Unneccesary AfD, I put a PROD on the draft but creator removed it. Likely not notable as a director due to lack of wide spread non interview (primary) sources. If this article needs to be kept, it needs to be merged with the draft. The draft had many sources from here [38], many of which relate to the production of the films themselves, not her. DareshMohan (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and merge the Draft into it (that was deleted at the time of creation. However, why was DareshMohan's draft rejected?). She meets WP:DIRECTOR in my view; the two films she directed seem notable enough. She does qualify for a page. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasons I can think of was that the film Bindaas Hudugi wasn't linked in the draft, the film Jambada Hudugi itself is in dire need of more sources (and given its lowkey release, the 100 days claim seems doubtful [39]) and the lack of article for Smuggler despite having five sources. Bindaas Hudugi also running for hundred days is doubtful (in which and how many theaters? [40]). Main reason is all sources are about films and not about her itself, but to be fair she didn't do that many films. DareshMohan (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: suggest merging with Draft:Priya Hassan as the draft had better sources that seem to pass WP:NACTOR. --Shiv989 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Megan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some passing mentions in the ext links but not sufficient for a WP:BLP. No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. No updates. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, England, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kurowski

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:SINGER. No indication of significance.Single ref is a profile. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never been updated. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article hasn't developed since the no-consensus AfD 13 years ago, and the de.wiki one is similar. As far as I can see, the subject continues working, in duo and band with a pianist, Dirk Balthaus; I don't see indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The previous AfD had the unresolved issue of whether the Das Hungertuch Künstlerpreis was sufficient to indicate notability as an author: I notice the de.wiki article on that Prize was itself deleted later in 2012. AllyD (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone with access to the website and/or German-language proficiency help assess these articles from Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ): [41][42][43]? These [44][45] seem to be about her book (and an exhibit) on her relationship with her father, artist Walter Kurowski [de]. There are some other WAZ articles that are marked as "local", but I've only included the ones categorized at the city level. Bridget (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lot to base notability on. It all seems to local news. The book may be notable. I see its published by Rowohlt which is an old established publisher, potentially indication of pass as WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think these add upto much. There is a couple of event listings and promo for the book. There could me here though. scope_creep^Talk 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The La Donnas

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Been on the cat:nn list for more than 10+ years. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have a two-sentence biography at AllMusic ([46]) and a regional newspaper article ([47]), but that's all I can find beyond the usual streaming services and occasional blog posts. They're kind of close to notability but can't quite meet the WP:THREE standard for reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added 11 reviews directly to the article [48]; though mostly underground publications, the sample at least includes some of the more notable ones (Maximum Rocknroll) and from two continents. I'm curious to see if there is any newspapers.com coverage (which is not working at the moment.) Geschichte (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they WP:MUSICRS references, as a lot of them looks small blogs and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are blogs, but some of them are zines. Also I would have liked for the Allmusic review, for instance (and the Allmusic bio) to be a lot longer. Geschichte (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources identified by doomsdayer520 are a good start and Geschichte has found a number of reviews in a variety of sources, some of which are RSMUSIC. Sufficient presented here to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 23:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some serious cleanup. She's a noted participant in a notable show: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2437664/voters-declare-aruba-mirza-winner-of-tamasha-season-2 https://24newshd.tv/24-Sep-2023/fans-disapprove-of-aruba-mirza-s-victory-in-popular-tv-show-tamasha https://www.trendinginsocial.com/tamasha-season-2-winner/ Coverage about her private life also abounds. She does seem to be notable enough. (FWIW Various roles presented as lead/main in the articles about series she played in). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done both supporting and lead roles and in this source it is mentioned how she started her career also she appeared in Tamasha Season 2 and she won.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC))^[1]^[2][reply]
Comment - As a winner of a notable TV show I would say there "should" be significant coverage, but everything presented in the discussion with the exception of this has no byline and would be churnalism or otherwise unreliable. I also found some tabloid-type references about an engagement but those wouldn't be suitable for notability. Is there by chance an alternative spelling of the name I can use for search; or, any non-English sources that someone can point out that would be considered significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will check in other languages news usually in Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Again, deletion is not cleanup; subject passes C1 WP:Anybio per the award and WP:Nactor. Kaizenify (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, per the relist comments, and per CNMall41, the sourcing is just not there. ANYBIO C1 does not apply - this is not a significant award. NACTOR criterion 1 looks stronger, but meeting NACTOR criterion 1 does not guarantee the subject should be included, per the SNG guidelines themselves. As no one has been able to provide suitable sourcing from which a page could be written, there is no reason to keep this page. I would be happy with a redirect if anyone can suggest something suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and CNMall41. Fails to clear notability and GNG too. Keep !votes aren't convincing enough and the sources provided do not make it past SIGCOV and GNG threshold. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohiro Hatta

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

BLP. No indication of signifance. BLP prod removed. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magwayen Creative Scholars' Guild

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of credible sources. Cites are all blog sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, Schools, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The main problem is sources. There is a chance of better sources being out there.

Sushidude21! (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable student theatre group that apparently produces one show per year, for one weekend. See WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ssilvers. Only a few news articles about this group appeared when I searched the internet, and they were all outdated, going back to 2014 and before. While such news articles exist, they're mostly from PEP.ph and only discuss the events the group held in those years, which I think is insufficient to establish WP:SIGCOV of the group as a whole. AstrooKai (Talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilman Louie

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

non-notable person who created an article about themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has been expanded since creation, and Gilmanl's current authorship is around 3%, so I'm not too concerned there. Notability is the bigger concern. The coverage in The Christian Science Monitor is significant, reliable (see WP:CSMONITOR), secondary, and independent. Finding a second source is harder. Most other sources the article cites are not independent, unless the government [49] counts as independent. A Vox article [50] I found may have significant enough coverage, or it may not. More than one sentence addresses Louie directly. Regardless, being on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board might mean WP:NPOL applies. I'm at a weak keep for now. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 07:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina F. Acosta

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A staff member at the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines does not count toward WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple secondary sources such as The Philippine Star, Daily Tribune and GMA News Online have covered this government official from the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The OVP's questionable use of confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte has been among the top issues discussed in Philippine politics this year, if not the topmost (alongside tensions in the South China Sea and the POGO menace), and much of the Philippine media has been extensively covering the hearings conducted on this matter by the House Committee on Good Government in the past few months ([51][52][53][54][55]).

On November 5, Acosta was among the seven OVP officials who issued a position letter asking that the house congressional inquiry into their budget use be terminated ([56]), and by November 11 was among the four OVP officials ordered arrested based on a contempt citation issued by the committee for their non-attendance at the hearings ([57]). During the November 20 hearing, OVP chief of staff Zuleika T. Lopez and a branch manager of Land Bank of the Philippines gave testimonies that pinpointed Acosta as the OVP official who directly handled the confidential funds of the vice president ([58][59]). The varied independent coverage cited in this paragraph alone, in my view, merits notability for the article; further coverage in the media is also anticipated in the aftermath of the testimonies given in the Nov. 20 hearing. LionFosset (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LionFosset All the sources you mentioned are good but they do not count toward WP:GNG sources. The subject fails Wikipedia criteria for politician and non WP:GNG sources cannot be used for WP: SIGCOV. Please read more about WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person has not ran for public office i.e. not a politician, so I don't know how WP:NPOL applies. She appears to be more of a career civil servant or a bureaucrat. This person is notable for one event which is on Sara Duterte's alleged corruption, so the best solution is to merge and redirect this with the article that discusses that, or if that doesn't exist, transform this BLP article to such an article. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck That's an insightful suggestion. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck You took the words right out of my mouth: Acosta is not a politican. Though I concede to the fact that the person is largely notable for one event so far (i.e. Onel de Guzman, a private citizen who created the ILOVEYOU virus), numerous secondary sources have covered the person not just as a probable participant in Duterte's unusual confidential fund use from 2022 to 2023, but as a government official ordered to be arrested after she was cited in contempt for her continuous absence from house committee hearings in spite of two subpoenas ([60][61][62][63]). LionFosset (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LionFosset All the sources you provided do not count toward WP:GNG because they lack the WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue to give arguments on this matter soon, but I am posting here for reference (and maybe posterity) some stunning developments that just occurred within the past 24 hours in Philippine politics (1. VP Duterte refuses to leave the House of Rep. detention center holding her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez; 2. VP Duterte goes on a tirade against the House committee hearings and curses at President Marcos, his wife and House Speaker Romualdez, claiming to have already spoken with a contract killer to target them in the event she herself is assassinated; 3. VP Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez faints from an anxiety attack at 3 a.m. and is brought from the detention center to a hospital; 4. Executive Sec. Lucas Bersamin deems VP Duterte's statements an "active threat" against the administration). LionFosset (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimitsu

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

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm leaning forward to being neutral in this situation. I feel like there's a chance the character might be notable since they have been involved in two fighting game franchises and have almost appeared in every main game of each franchise and gone through multiple distinct designs. Otherwise, the best source I could find about Yoshimitsu is [64]. These sources might also help [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69]. Aside from that, this character has three incarnations throughout the Tekken and Soulcalibur franchises, so if the character information is going to be merged, then the Tekken version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Tekken series, and the Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Soulcalibur series. Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just not notable. The WP:GNG is clearly failed here. If this page is redirected, it should be moved and the DAB made primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grema Sulaiman

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

All the sources Fail WP: GNG. Being a director of a non-notable organization does not count toward WP:SNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep '-The subject is of high notability in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He is a prominent energy figure who advocated for the establishment of key energy initiatives, including the Nigeria Energy Transition Fund (NET-FUND), an innovative financing model to propel Nigeria’s energy transition, which acquired $2bn in Foreign Direct Investment into the country. He is a well-known figure in Nigeria and in the Nigerian energy industry at large.

While an editor claims that the Centre for Energy Investment and Innovation (an organization the subject leads) lacks notability, this does/should not diminish the subject's recognition/notability. Reputable sources such as Vanguard, Premium Times, and This Day have consecutively reported about the subject. See [70] and [71] [72] [73].

The article may require improvement and minor edits, but this should not serve as a ground for deletion. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to expand the article and provide more context, keeping in mind that a lack of citations should not automatically lead to deletion unless it severely impacts the article's verifiability. Gonisulaimann (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom

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

Uncited article on an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bergen op Zoom#History (provided it is properly sourced). That article mentions the margravate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge indeed. Title abolished in 1795 is a fascinating footnote and barely more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is too large to merge into the Bergen op Zoom history section, the result would be too unbalanced. I have provided three references. Bergen op Zoom is very proud of its history as margraviate. The palace of the margraves is a wonderful museum. The article on the list of Lords and Margraves is very interesting and useful.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size is a relative concept. The history section in the Bergen op Zoom article is four paragraphs, 320 words. Very short. The Lords and margraves article is 200 words. Large, relative to the short history section. Merge the two and the result is unbalanced, in my opinion. That´s all. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - European noble titles / families are notable when adequately sourced, and this one is. It's a bit too large to merge comfortably to the Bergen op Zoom article. Ingratis (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel that reasons stated by keep voters above are just so. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Hymes

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

The sources Fail General Notability Guide and specific Notability Guidelines for WP:ANYBIO Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage from current sources does not seem signficant. One nomination for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Stunt Coordination does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. A cursory Google search turned up an LA Times article involving Hymes [74], but the coverage of Hymes himself is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[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. ✗plicit 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbil St Joseph's High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. 4 google news hits, none indepth. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to locate any sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Doesn't establish notability. Draftify if you can find other better sources, else delete
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Davide Lombardi

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace. It's mostly sourced with press releases. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Engineering, and Italy. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV (barely). There definitely needs to be some serious pruning of bad promotional sources and writing, reformatting of the article, editing for encyclopedic tone, etc. However, there are four articles among the references which are independent significant coverage about Davide Lombardi; three of which are in the LightSoundJournal, which is a professional publication for light and audio engineers, and one of which is from an Italian media source. He works as a sound engineer for notable artists, so I am leaning on the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 That's a valid point; however, a reminder to anyone else reading this that Lombardi doesn't inherit notability from the people he works with. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability comes through his work within his business. From the references you can see he is one of the most successful people in his own business, hence the amount of interviews and big Artists names that employ him for major projects, similar to most articles with notable knowledge, but yet not in the mainstream of press like TV stars. if that makes sense? Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are all interviews - and in trade media, at that. The other sources are blogs or references to events where the subject has worked. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. it is good to point out that as well as interviews, there are dedicated articles to Davide Lombardi and they are all from independent significant coverage Worldwide, USA, UK, Germany Italy to name the most relevant ones. We can see on Wikipedia similar subjects with less references from similar sources. Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth to mention his notoriety is acclaimed by being an international award winner from ProsoundNews, while also nominated twice from TPi Awards from TPiMagazine, by MondialeMedia. They are both two of the most prestigious international prizes in audio engineering. Fabrizio Di Ninni 1982 (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sartre

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Doesn't entirely establish notability. Needs better sources and better info. Too many red links, suggesting that not notable
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [75]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a mix of moderate and trivial mentions, from databases or entertainment platforms that focus on her work rather than her broader impact. However, given the combination of in-depth interviews, mainstream coverage (Stern), and critical industry coverage from Las Vegas Weekly, Adult DVD Talk, the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not seeing a keep on sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot Fire Records

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

Non notable business. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden. Lacks independent coverage about it, lots of PR placement which don't satisfy sourcing criterea, lacking independence. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page that just reproduces content from the main page:

duffbeerforme (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Bash Luks and copy edit/trim for encyclopedic tone. While I can understand the need to cleanup after a sock editor with a coi, the referencing in this case is not bad. The articles use multiple reliable news sources from Uganda and Ghana where Bash Luks and/or Lot Fire Records are the primary subject. The Kampala Dispatch and Tower Post are reputable newspapers. News Ghana is a reputable news portal. Capital Radio (ie 91.3 Capital FM) is also reputable. There is certainly enough reliable secondary coverage to support an article on Bash Luks per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. At this point I think Lot Fire Records would be better covered in that article because I don't think the record label as yet passes WP:NCORP. The list is small, and doesn't need to be a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to press releases, the whole enterprise, its artists, its CEO are not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

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

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Companies, Popular culture, and Internet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, as I cannot find any significant coverage in independent sources. Redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes, its one notable project, where Culturenet Cymbru is briefly described (and is an article that has survived AfD). Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for information about this company on every search engine but found nothing. I don’t believe it is notable or meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46508394 JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD or keep for passing WP:SIGCOV. A basic WP:BEFORE search shows plenty of coverage in google books such as [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], etc This was a notable project and the content would be a reasonable subsection in the NLW article. I also see no issue with leaving it as a stand alone article. Either way, deletion or a redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes is not the answer as the organization was involved in multiple large digitization projects of note; some of which are the primary subject of journal articles viewable in this Google Scholar search. 4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV must be more than a mention. Indeed, Culturenet must meet WP:NORG as the appropriate SNG. The guidance on SIGCOV may be found under WP:ORGDEPTH which says, inter alia,
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Your references 2-6 are all passing mentions. "Culturenet's gathering the jewels" or a caption for an image, or "now available on..." are all passing mentions. None of these are SIGCOV by any margin, let alone ORGDEPTH. The first reference is longer. It has a paragraph about what CultureNet was remitted to do. It is not, to my mind, coverage at ORGDEPTH, but that one is moot in any case. The paragraph was written by CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales for the Welsh Affairs Committee Evidence, included in a section on the National Library. CyMAL was a division of Welsh Government, and Welsh Government sponsor NLW. CyMAL funded Culturenet's GTJ and other such projects. This, then, is a primary source and not independent. It is Welsh Government telling the Welsh Affairs committee about the work it is doing. To meet WP:NORG (or WP:GNG for that matter), multiple sources must have significant coverage, and be independent, reliable secondary sources. See WP:SIRS. None of these meet these criteria. Redirecting to 100 Welsh Heroes per Schazjmd would be more sensible as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. There are multiple journal articles with the organization in the title of the article in google scholar. These in combination with the book sources (of which I just randomly listed the first books in the search; but there were pages of book hits) would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. The scope of the Culturenet Cymru makes 100 Welsh Heroes a bad merge target; although it would be ok as a redirect. Doing that however, would lose encyclopedic information of value which would be WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article on the National Library of Wales. Given your argument that company has essentially been folded into the NLW in your deletion nomination, the NLW is clearly the better target for both a merge and a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the coverage is trivial. To take just one of these as an example, we read: "All-Wales examples include Culturenet Cymru's Gathering the Jewels (20,000-plus items) and the National Library's Digital Mirror (0.5m-plus items)..." (Osmond, 2006). Now compare that text to the relevant section of ORGDEPTH I quote above. This is not significant coverage. Not under GNG and certainly not under NORG. And they are all at this level. Maybe the problem here is that your "randomly listed" selection is where the BEFORE was not carried out. Why do you think I am unfamiliar with that literature? But where is the deep or significant coverage about Culturenet? Where is the coverage that extends well beyond brief mentions? The information from which an article can be written? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because cherry picking the weakest source of the bunch, and misrepresenting the quoted text in that source by taking it out of paragraph/section context is a balanced and fair way to do source analysis 🙄.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a (sometimes controversial) body funded by government, it should stay. Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a company, not an assembly sponsored public body. It needs to pass WP:NORG. Do you have independent secondary sources about the controversy? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a government funded and run initiative, it was never a private institution/company. Read the sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. Please read the nom. statement again. It was constituted as a company.[82] It was specifically arranged so that it was not run by the Welsh Government, and although it got project funding from the Government, this was in the manner that other companies are awarded project funding and it was not a sponsorship arrangement. So again, WP:NORG is the SNG. What sources do we have that meet WP:ORGDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A company run and funded by the government. I think you are splitting hairs.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not run by the government. It was run by company employees under directorrship of employees of the National Library, which is itself not run by the government (although it has a Government remit letter). I am not splitting hairs. The whole point was to set it up as a company because it was not an arm of Government. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYERING as it relates to following the spirit of policies.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to unpack this for me. What exactly are you arguing for here? That this company should not be subjected to the need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (WP:SIRS)? Why? because it was funded primarily through Government project funding? Note that WP:NORG says

This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise)...is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization.

The guidelines surely and evidently therefore apply to Culturenet Cymru PLC. It seems to me that if you are arguing (incorrectly in my view) that this was nothing but an arm of governemnt, it is even less notable. Its notability for a standalone page surely must derive from its separation from the National Library (whose staff were the company officers). It is either not notable because it was nothing but an arm of the library, or it may be notable as a standalone organisation - if it meets NORG. Which is it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that in this particular case, this specific company should be treated the way we would treat any government run and government funded program because in any way that essentially matters that's what this company was. It was created through government legislation, it was founded using tax payer dollars, and it was managed by a government institution. Trying to treat it like a normal for profit private business under WP:ORG policy doesn't seem to meet the spirit of our principals; particularly when the product being produced was for free public consumption within a national library. In otherwords, demanding WP:ORGCRIT here seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do treat all such organisations this way See NORG "Commercial or otherwise". Note that I have throughout said NORG and not NCORP. Profit is not the issue. The lack of sources about the organisation is the issue. It needs to meet ORGCRIT because that is the relevant SNG as it would be for, say, a Government funded school. And I don't think you have read what POINTY means. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments aren't helpful. WP:ORGCRIT was created as a means of critiquing the notability of for-profit business like Google or Microsoft or any other clearly for-profit business. It wasn't designed to handle weird cases like this which involve government managing bodies and products which are being created for free public consumption in a weird blend of public-private partnership. This company's goals better allign with the goals of a non-profit and the scrutiny we developed to support the WP:NOTPROMO model for-profit companies under WP:ORGCRIT are not appropriately applied in the context of an organization that was essentially created to do large scale digitization projects and research in the context of a national library that has free access to people in Wales. At some point WP:COMMONSENSE has to come into play and a consideration of the spirit of our policies at the WP:Five Pillars. You are welcome to keep pushing WP:ORGCRIT, but I think its WP:POINTY to do so per WP:5P5 and not beneficial to the project.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you have accused me of cherry picking, misrepresentation, wikilawyering, Ididnthearthat and pointiness (twice). It is clear you are not going to assume good faith. I'll leave it there with you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have done some of those things. Cherry picking (be honest you picked the worst source out of the ones listed to highlight), misrepresentation (you did take that one source out of context of the paragraph), wikilawyering (you are being pedantic on a particular policy that wasn't designed to handle a company of this kind), Ididnthearthat (you were ignoring what I was saying and repeating arguments after every editors comments that disagreed) and pointiness (you are trying to make a point with ORGCRIT after it was pointed out to why it doesn't fit well in this context). I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive, and that you are contributing with good intent and in the best way you know how. I do think you have lost perspective, and are not listening well to what other editors are saying.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing extensive coverage. A search in ["Culturenet Cymru" -wikipedia site:.bbc.com] yielded little. As well as 2 google news hits. and passing mentions in google books. Fails WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability in being government funded. This source and this found by 4meter are 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV. and I can't find specific reference in this. This one is 2 lines of mention in a whole book. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar Would you support a merge to National Library of Wales per WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merge/redirect to National Library of Wales as an WP:ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

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

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We certainly don't have to accept this because it is just an essay, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) states that national pageant winners in the big four pageants (of which Miss Universe is one) are generally presumed to be notable. Meaning that its likely WP:SIGCOV exists. Given the year she won, it is possible the coverage was more offline than online as it was in the weird time period where everything hadn't yet shifted over even though the internet was up and running. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I tried doing WP:BEFORE through wikipedia library, and could only find two articles in 2007:
- Civic thrill for beauty queen: [New Sunday Times Edition]
Summary: About her purchase of Honda Civic.
- Celeb style [Malay Mail]
Summary: Interview about her fashion style.
– robertsky (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[83] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhareswar Mandir, Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha

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

Exists in draftspace as well. Totally unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Odisha. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shrine of Lord Sikhareswar in village Baldiabandha ia a well-known temple .Though not much publicity in newspapers/social media is there. Over the years, this religious institution has come up as a centre for Saivite worship.It is a green temple in serene natural environment in Dhenkanal.I earnestly submit to you consider this stub article,a part of subaltern history of this region.

Warm regards and gratitude JAMKUM (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google News reveals nothing same goes with books and the article is written like an advert. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I Draftify this because of that. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There’s something going on, and it’s impossible to determine if it’s being done in good faith (so we need to WP:AGF). IP editors are leaving comments on the talk page of the article and AfD begging for this article to be kept. I can understand one or two IP editors doing this, editing logged out out of principle is A Thing, but I’ve never seen this many IP editors do this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there are people who are connected in some way to this temple that don't want the article deleted. It happens.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 Perhaps! It's stopped, regardless. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In doing a WP:BEFORE search, I located many sources which had SIGCOV of the Sikhareswar Mandir in Guwahati, Assam but could locate no sources about the temple of the same name in Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha. I searched under all three names separately just in case and got zero hits. It's possible there are sources in the Odia language (the official language of that part of India) but that is beyond my skill set. Without evidence on this temple, and with the url links in the article not covering the temple, we have no choice but to delete.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it one more week. IP editors: you need to provide sources if you want this to be kept (see WP:42), or offer an WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

Thanks for benign consideration. JAMKUM (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Zakharov (footballer, born 2000)

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

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC).--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - Draftify until better sources are found.
Sushidude21! (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:SPORTSBASIC. I found coverage on a Russian scientist and a Russian television personality/broadcaster of the same name. Admittedly I am not a Russian speaker so my BEFORE may not have turned up something pertinent to notability on this particular Dmitri Zakharov. If something changes, ping me. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – if someone shows interest in improving. I'm not opposed to deleting it. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nileena Abraham

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

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Would having been the Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji Professor of Bengali at the International School of Dravidian Linguistics, Thiruvananthapuram count as a named chair for the purposes of meeting WP:PROF? Also is the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M considered completely unreliable? (Although the Google Books link given is incorrect, the subject does appear on pp. 7–8.[84]) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it very odd for someone with only Master's degrees to hold a C5-qualifying named chair. And the school isn't even notable itself! JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay I think it's easy to become very US/UK centric with these named chairs.

On the question of GNG, I found a substantial material on Abraham in JSTOR .5325/complitstudies.53.2.0359, which has substantive (~3pp) coverage of her work translating Arogyaniketan by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay, with some bio material. Considered together with the award, and Who's Who entry, and given that the above source is talking about work in 1961 and not in English, I feel that further expert research offline by someone who speaks the relevant languages is likely to uncover more material, so I'm going with keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict who has has convinced me that this person meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Palmowski

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has only competed in entry level series (Ginetta Junior Championship and FIA Formula 4). Article is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, United Kingdom, Sportspeople, and Women. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Palmowski, is a F1 Academy wildcard driver, and since all F1 Academy drivers have pages, why not her? She is also the runner-up of the 2024 GB4 Championship and can be considered as a future prospect for female racing drivers. At least draft the page BurningBlaze05 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Academy is an entry-level series, therefore its' competitors don't meet notability guidelines – WP:WHATABOUTISM is not an excuse. I have no issue with drafting, however "can be considered as a future prospect" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know nothing about this content area, but here are the sources I could locate: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. I don't know how to evaluate content in this area which seems hyper specific to motor sports so I will leave it to others to determine whether this meets WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She seems to have enough coverage for WP:GNG - have added 3 new refs which are not simply database results listings. PamD 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with Pam. With the sources she added, and the ones I found I think WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG are met.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:N, she received significance coverage and pass WP:SIGCOV. Wyzoqaku (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable sportswoman. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diahnne Abbott

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

Non-notable actress. Mainly famous for being the first wife of Robert De Niro, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. She has an encyclopedia entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, see page 4, and there are many other sources in this Internet Archive search; including another biographical entry in Halliwell's who's who in the movies which is a film encyclopedia. Under WP:5P1 we cover the same topics found in specialized encyclopedias, and since two published specialized encyclopedia cover this person we should too. Additionally, she had more significant roles in The King of Comedy and Love Streams, and she has a featured on screen song number in the film New York, New York, performing "Honeysuckle Rose (song)" (also appearing on the soundtrack album). She arguably passes WP:NACTRESS for multiple notable roles.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:SIGCOV. I have noting more to add to above comment. Gharouni^Talk 02:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable actress. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV with the entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, and other significant movie roles. --Shiv989 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperintensity

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

Is mostly a fork of White matter hyperintensity Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. White matter hyperintensity is a redirect to Leukoaraiosis which is only one disease that has pathology involving Hyperintensity. Leukoencephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, etc. also have T2 hyperintensity imaging results. Not really seeing a need to delete this as they are different by related topics with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... saw Leukoaraiosis mostly talking about WMH, but you are right. I think its the a subcategory of WMH, so surprising it takes up the whole WMH redirect.
There is some weirdness happening here.
- Leukoaraiosis is a subcategory of WMH, and I think does not appear much often at all in literature (only 20k hits on google Scholar).
- WMH is the more widely used supercategory to define a presentation. (>100k hits on google scholar)
- Hyperintensity by itself does not mean much, just abnormal increase in intensity of something, this article is more about White matter hyperintensities.
I might be in favor of a merge Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overbolding of every other term in the first few paragraphs of hyperintensity definitely suggest a lack of focus for the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s more of a style issue which can be fixed (although redirected words should be bolded under MOS). Honestly I think it’s best to leave the article where it is because hyperintensity, while more common in white matter, can also occur in gray matter. Gray matter hyperintensity is associated with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and can also be a sign of a stroke.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are fairly different clinical bases in general even if they show up similar in MRI.

a similar analogy would be high body temp… maybe its cuz person has a fever maybe they have heat stroke, but the measuring instrument says they have a very high temperature… even if there is a similar mechanism of the body overheating the underlying aspects are different enough they should not be combined into a single wikipedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there’s different clinical causes between hyperintensity appearing in gray matter versus white matter, but that’s not really relevant to what is essentially an article on an imaging term. Hyperintensity on an MRI scan is hyperintensity on an MRI scan no matter where it happens in terms of the kind of tissue it presents in. It seems to me you are confusing an imaging reading term used for diagnostic analysis with the pathophysiology of the diseases often associated with the imaging term. They are related but separate.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Farm Bureau

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish. On the one hand, we would presumably have a clear example of what WP:BRANCH was intended for; failing to find sources outside of the branch unit's area of operation, we would redirect to the parent organization. On the other hand, on this very day the American Farm Bureau Federation kicked the Illinois Farm Bureau out of the federation over a membership/business dispute, and as of December the state bureau will not have a parent organization, litigation and backroom dealing pending. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the organization in non-WP:TRADES publications separate from this dispute, and that coverage is all in agricultural trade publications and local news outlets in small Illinois markets. In the absence of an WP:NORG pass and without an appropriate WP:BRANCH redirect target, I'd have to !vote delete. Open to an WP:IAR redirect to American Farm Bureau Federation too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:

Nancy K. Berlage. "Organizing the Farm Bureau: Family, Community, and Professionals, 1914-1928" Agricultural History, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 406-437 (32 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3745183
Farmers Helping Farmers: The Rise of the Farm and Home Bureaus, 1914-1935 (2016, Louisiana State University Press)
Dan Leifel and Norma Haney. The Diamond Harvest: A History of the Illinois Farm Bureau (Bloomington: Illinois Agricultural Association, 1990).
Cynthia Clampitt. Mid- west Maize: How Corn Shaped the U.S. Heartland (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015).
Additionally JSTOR has 240 hits when searching on the "Illinois Farm Bureau" and there are more than 9,000 hits in PROQUEST with lots of SIGCOV news coverage across many decades. Sourcing and WP:ORGCRIT is not an issue here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on these sources:

The first two (the Agricultural History article and the LSU Press book) are both by the same author, Nancy Berlage. Collectively these would count as one source (since they are not intellectually independent of each other).
Dan Leifel and Norma Maney both worked for the Illinois Farm Bureau for decades, Leifel as general counsel and Maney as an executive assistant. Their history of the IFB cannot be considered an independent source.
Can you point to what in the Clampitt book refers to the Illinois Farm Bureau? I can't access the text but the snippets available via Google Books indicate it's only index mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can share how Clampitt discusses the subject. (If it was pulled from this Illinois historiography article, it's clear the author is talking about the Maney and Leifel book, not saying Clampitt covered the IFB in her book: Agriculture remains a critical part of the Illinois economy. A recent centennial history of the Illinois Farm Bureau offers a broad look at state agriculture including the post World War II period. Cynthia Clampitt wrote a history of midwestern corn production that includes work on Illinois.)
The "NPR" story I linked above is actually a local radio story from an NPR affiliate and doesn't pass the WP:AUD test.
I paged through many of the JSTOR listings and didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the Berlage article above, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

Based on this analysis, I see only one WP:SIRS source to pass WP:NORG. Open to reviewing more if you can supply additional examples. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domain authority

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

Aazingly outdated article for something that seems at core to be based on one company's ("Moz") proprietary product.

The article ttself makes this clear:

"The software as a service company Moz.org has developed an algorithm and weighted level metric, branded as "Domain Authority", which gives predictions on a website's performance in search engine rankings with a discriminating range from 0 to 100".

Search doesn't work this way any more, and almost all the references cited are incredibly outdated; the thing described doesn't really exist any more, algorithms have moved on. There is probably an article to be written on site reputation, but this isn't it. — The Anome (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per WP:WRONGFORUM. I don’t think this is something we can handle at AFD because it requires expert opinion and original analysis based on expertise rather than an evaluation of sources based on WP:N or WP:Deletion policy. It is essentially a content decision more akin to a content dispute than to notability issue. I would suggest working with editors on the talk page and discussing how to handle this or contacting a relevant WikiProject to enlist editors on reworking or repurposing the article. A move discussion might be in order at that time to your suggestion of site reputation. I don’t think AFD is the right pathway to address these issues. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etty Lau Farrell

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is a biography of a person whose biggest claim to fame is being married to a notable musician. Sources presented are articles on Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (more than a few of which don't even mention Etty at all), primary interviews, passing mentions, etc. The sources with the most dedicated coverage to her here are a Forbes contributor article and a Wordpress blog (neither of which are in any way acceptable for BLP articles, see WP:FORBESCON and WP:WORDPRESS), virtually none of the others establish notability. Given the WP:BLP problems at play here, including numerous sections of unsourced content about the living subject, as well as the aforementioned WP:SIGCOV issues (which WP:BEFORE could not help alleviate, since most of the standalone coverage that a search could turn up is about her commentary on a single controversy from around the same period), this person is unworthy of an article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life per WP:ATD. The only sourcing I could find were all WP:TABLOID articles.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, Television, Hong Kong, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perry Farrell#personal life. I am very familiar with Jane's Addiction so I know this story. Etty Lau does have some of her own accomplishments in dance and music, but usually these are only mentioned briefly in lists of credits for the works of more famous collaborators. She occasionally makes the news for involvement in her husband's management but it tends to be in the form of celebrity gossip (e.g. [95], [96]). She's closer to her own notability than it might appear at first glance, but there is not enough reliable and independent coverage to sustain an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wily

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

This has been redirected because it relies heavily on primary sources and the nominator's WP:BEFORE found nothing but game reviews, but i am here to give this article a second chance, Wily is a pretty popular character, it has been a year and a half since it was redirected, so doing a WP:BEFORE should find some reliable sources as a keep, but if not, we can restore the merge and redirect. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect and procedural close per WP:G4. This is the exact same article we looked at last time (zero alterations) and this is an abuse of process. It’s not AFD’s job to source hunt in this context, and the nominator didn’t even bother to suggest what these new sources are in asking for us to look at this again. If you want to work on it, do so in WP:USERSPACE by copy pasting the article into your WP:SANDBOX. When you have located new sources and then improved the article to a state where you think it meets WP:GNG undo the the redirect and make it live per WP:BOLD. If people disagree it may end back here at WP:AFD. At which point we will either confirm your opinion or reinstate the redirect. Don’t ask us to relook at anything that hasn’t changed since the last time we looked at it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone please link the discussion leading to this becoming a redirect, because I cannot see it? Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge it was BLAR'd after some scattered discussion, per reasons described in the edit summary and in this AfD's nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose procedural close, WP:G4 doesn't apply here, there hasn't been a previous AfD or other discussion, just someone BLARring the page. --Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Rather, after the article was boldly redirected, any editor with an opposing opinion is justified to restore the article and start a more thorough discussion according to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That said though, it would have been the burden of the nominator to conduct a WP:BEFORE search according to the deletion process, which should not be pushed onto the participants of the discussion. It's an unusual case here, because the nominator is also the one who restored the article first, but still. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise an analysis of the article's sourcing as well as of any potential sourcing, given that we're in this venue now, and especially so since the nom does not seem to have done a BEFORE. I'll take a look later myself and see if I find anything, but the current Reception is very much a lot of random listicle rankings and such that don't really say much, so I doubt most of it can really be considered Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE wasn't very fruitful. I turned up two Destructoid sources- [97] This one is a merchandise announcement that briefly covers how Wily's groveling became iconic, but that's pretty minor and can be summed up in a sentence. [98] This one happens to cover Wily's actions, but after reading it, it becomes apparent it's just a very dramatically worded summary of Wily's actions throughout the Mega Man series.

A look through Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions and official material, and Scholar yielded the same. [99][100] These two mention Wily, but I can't access them, so I have no idea to what degree their coverage of him is. If both of these turn out to have nothing, then there's nothing really else for this guy at all. If someone who has access can assess these sources, I'd appreciate it greatly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the former accessible through this link? I've seen there very brief characterization as a "selfish scientist" with "aspirations of world domination", and a few sentences of plot summary there. Daranios (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Looks like they're one and the same, good find. It looks primarily to be about Mega Man the character and series, and less so Wily, who only gets mentioned a few times with very little substance. I doubt it'd be enough to help Wily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Endorse I don't yet have an opinion on notability, but considering the article history, having an AFD discussion in lieu of a unilateral blank-and-redirect is reasonable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect I really wish people would just give the BLAR process a chance; there's no indication of notability, nothing new has been presented to indicate notability, and instead if for some reason the character achieves notability later on, reviving it will be that much harder. Additionally it should be on the AfD nominator to do the before, not people responding to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I find uncontroversial to BLAR are something that is totally uncited or pure plot. If it even has a hint of citations, it should go to full AfD discussion. Many can interpret BLARs of fully cited articles as doing an end-run around an AfD, even if that is not intended. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.

[2] "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

[3] "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

[1]

[2]

[1]