Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 27	September 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AT-43

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

Defunct game that fails GNG. Has had no GNG passing sourcing for 15 years now, and searching reveals little more than fan sites wondering why the game died and is unlikely to ever be notable. Article is also an irretrievable mess of in-universe fancruft/advertising copy. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paula von Hentke

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:No original research. Article is built almost entirely from primary sources like concert programs and theater performance databases. There are no independent secondary sources which address the subject directly and in detail. While I don't doubt that the subject could arguably meet WP:NMUSICIAN based on primary sources, the overuse of primary materials is problematic for its WP:OR. This is an example of someone who needs some coverage in secondary sources in order to be compliant with policies outside WP:N. We fundamentally can't build an article mainly off of primary materials. This is an example of where an academic needs to do some work first and get published in a journal or write something up in a book before we can have an article. 4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is probably someone who could pass GNG if you were a German speaking/reading interwar musical history fan who had access to period news archives. But no-one like that has shown up to put in some significant coverage, and the article creator got banned for fake referencing so what references are there are already suspect and might not be legitimate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. I’m not against primary sources. My problem is that her roles are basically supporting roles in opera, and so there’s likely not much left to find. Bearian (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duanju

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

Non-notable topic - the MIT source does not mention the article title, and the Chinese source seems to be a primary source and/or blog. LR.127 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and China. LR.127 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXISTS I was able easily to find, for example:

Peoples Daily Overseas Ed., AV Market Ushering in a Short Drama Boom 视听市场迎来“短剧热 [1] explaining the phenomenon in many paragraphs
Guangming Daily News, A Taste of "Cool" and "Sweet" - Don't let these short dramas dominate your life 一味“爽”与“甜” 　别让微短剧离生活越来越远 [2] a Zhejiang Normal University professor commenting on these videos

If there are any concerns about these sources, feel free to say so and I will continue my search.

I don't think the Guangzhou Daily News source linked in the article[3] is a blog entry, since it has a byline and doesn't have a disclaimer about user-generated content. I can't see any way it would be primary. Did I miss something?

Not specifically directed at this editor, but I have noticed a lot of nominations for poorly sourced China-related articles which have substantial native language coverage. To be sure, the problem starts with editors who create poorly sourced articles on China-related topics. But these nominations put a burden on a small number of en.wikipedia editors who follow this board and can handle Chinese language sources. The burden (per WP:BEFORE) is to do a reasonable search, and I believe a search that doesn't fully embrace native language articles is unlikely to be a reasonable one. Oblivy (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I found even better sources by searching for "微短劇" (Wei Duanju, an alternative term for Duanju), which provided me with full articles detailing the history and trends of Duanju from BBC News[4], Initium Media[5], China Times[6], Public Television Service[7], and Sing Tao Daily[8]. Additionally, I found articles from Xinhua News Agency [9] and China News Service [10] using the term "短劇," as well as sources like Wen Wei Po discussing policies the Chinese government is set to implement regarding Duanju[11], and a United Daily News article covering recently popular Duanjus[12]. GNG is clearly fulfilled, and I agree with Oblivy that no BEFORE was conducted before this nomination. Besides, the second source in the article is indeed from Guangzhou Daily[13]. It is certainly not a "primary source and/or blog", it is a national newspaper. The nominator has clearly provided a flawed source assessment. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Oblivy and Prince of Erebor definitively establish that Duanju passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you both for your detailed searches for sources here and at other Chinese-topic AfDs. I endorse Oblivy's comment here:
But these nominations put a burden on a small number of en.wikipedia editors who follow this board and can handle Chinese language sources. The burden (per WP:BEFORE) is to do a reasonable search, and I believe a search that doesn't fully embrace native language articles is unlikely to be a reasonable one.
and made a similar comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newland Digital Technology. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe it or not, at least one fourth of the human being on this planet have watched Duanjus.

Iuliusnanus (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Whether it should be kept outright or merged can be addressed via a merge discussion, but it's clear that we have no consensus to delete this article. asilvering (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State Records

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

Redirect, or selectively merge into Tooth & Nail Records. It was disputed by one editor and reverted, thus seeking community input. The imprint itself doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and not fit to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The nominator himself doesn't argue for deletion, and if a merge is desired, that is typically handled through the use of the merge template; there's no reason that this needed to go through AfD. The label clearly meets the sense of one of the more important indies as described in WP:MUSIC, and as the article's sources already demonstrate, it routinely gets coverage in the music press (which makes sense, since it has had several dozen notable artists signed to it). Since this is a sublabel of Tooth & Nail, I'm not terribly picky over whether it is merged into the parent label article or not, but since we very clearly wouldn't want a redlink here, I don't understand why this discussion was even opened. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record labels are not evaluated under WP:NMUSIC. We've been through this discussion a million times. This article is uanble to satisfy NCORP to have its own standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have been through this discussion a million times, and it doesn't change the fact that NCORP doesn't make any more sense as an evaluative tool for labels as it would for bands (which are nearly all for-profit corporations). I am as tired of arguing about this as you are. Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Village Pump if you want to see "record labels" classified into a different bin of SNG. Until consensus grants a change, it remains under NORG/NCORP. @Chubbles:, you said don't understand why this discussion was even opened. I would have been happy with the re-direct I made or re-targeting. This is the reason it ended up here for further discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in this particular case, would satisfy the NCORP criteria? I am aware of sources, primarily interviews, that cover the origins and history of Solid State Records. I would be willing to dedicate some time to adding that history if that would benefit the article and this conversation. Metalworker14 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Metalworker14: It's explained in depth at WP:NCORP. Amateur interviews and podcasts do not count whatsoever. Contents from interview that come things said by company/band personnel do not count towards notability, because that's not in-depth independent coverage. Please ask after having fully read the guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Subject is a long-lasting indie label, seeking to delete because coverage is primarily discussed in context of their signing seems silly, and actively making Wikipedia less valuable as a resource. The notability of releases from this label should contribute, not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete. glman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete I mean, Motown has multiple books written about it. More reasonably, Warp Records comes to mind as an example of a WP:NCORP-meeting indie label. Mach61 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We are hovering between Keep and Merge but those are two very different outcomes. I can say that, at this point, this article is safe from Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CG5 (YouTuber)

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

I've done a source assessment of the citations this page, and it doesn't seem like this article passes WP:GNG, if we are to assume my assessments are 100% accurate.

As per WP:BLP, all sources must strictly adhere to the three core policies due to the sensitivity with these kinds of articles, and only two of this article's sources appear to do so. As such, I believe starting an AfD is the right path to take. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Arizona. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough good sources we can use for notability. Forbes is a contributor piece, so a non-RS. Source 4 is probably the best, but it's mostly videos the person has posted with brief text. Rest appear non-rs or trivial. I can only find Games Rant [14], which doesn't appear to be a RS per Project Video games. I'd be willing to use it if we had other, better sources. There just isn't enough here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov. Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not pass GNG. MasonJSO (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. for more info

References

^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources presented by @Endrabcwizart are unreliable. Ratopati(1,2) and prixa.net (4) aren't reliable. The only reliable newspaper The Himalayan Times was linked from a tag, which doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mentioned it because there is a substantial information available on this topic. Below are some links to reliable newspaper sources:

I believe a more reliable source available on Google . I will also update this discussion with better, more informative sources if I come across them.Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 23:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Triangle

AfDs for this article:

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

This was originally deleted in 2008 following a discussion, with the primary rationale being that this is a non-notable neologism based on a History Channel documentary. That assessment is still correct 16 years later. The sources cited here are clickbaity articles that all eventually end up back at the History Channel documentary or a more recent Travel Channel documentary on the same topic. This is a term made up by television producers to pick up views. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Geography, and Alaska. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article lacks any notability and is a clickbait neologism. Paul H. (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No serious media seem to discuss this. Plenty of coverage from our usual Indian news sources that don't seem particularly RS [20], [21]. The second one in particular is only written by "staff", so could be iffy. Odd that Indian media is interested in this, when no US media seems to be. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sourcing hasn't fundamentally changed, and is, quite frankly, surface-level musings with no in-depth analysis, and that all seem to end up repeating claims about aliens, conspiracy theories, and the possible involvement of a "man-eating monster known as a Wendigo". And that's just from the non-clickbait The Jerusalem Post. (It's also weirdly racist. Not that that impacts the notability of anything, but the Algonquin people have absolutely no connection to Alaska, yet the claim of "ooh, maybe Wendigos" is parroted, without question or explanation. Could that be because it's not an actual Jerusalem Post article? The byline indicates it was written by Walla! Communications Ltd. I have no idea about their reliability in general, but this article isn't giving me much faith.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, appears to be nothing but History Channel woo, all mentions either non-RS or listicle-ish fluff. (Plus, an insultingly amateurish article..."large holes, caves, and very large cravasses which may account for the disappearances"...seriously?) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's... after a lot of work to fix it up. Check the history. No objection to its deletion, but I've seen things kept that were as bad as this was, and wanted to make sure we weren't stuck with the worst possible version once eyes go off it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmitigated woo—blindlynx 22:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. With discounting of the sockpuppet arguments, this discussion has a clear consensus to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe this is raising WP:ASPERSIONs, but why would a bunch of random IP addresses be commenting on an AFD of a minor digital fashion lawyer? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANICVOTE if this is what I think it is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling out ducks is not casting aspersions.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions and self-pubs do not equal significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's some, not all references. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then point out the others. You have failed to do so as of yet. Also, with only 65 edits and not editing Wikipedia in over a year, I am curious what brought you to this specific AfD discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did 5 accounts with less than 100 edits all suddenly comment on this after I pointed out WP:PANICVOTE? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman:, based on the results of this SPI, you can probably strike the keep votes of confirmed socks. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the SPI, counting off at least 4-5 keep votes. Thank you for your hard work in reviewing :) 74.101.99.164 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Regardless of whether the voting above is in fact WP:PANIC or not, the article for Ravieshwar Singh is well sourced, with about two dozen citations. Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine), TV Guide Magazine, the Huffington Post, and other high-traffic, top-tier online magazines are all cited. Definitely not a notability fail since this meets WP:SIGCOV. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
passing refs and interviews cannot establish notability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced and he has extensive coverage in reputable outlets like Vogue and Elle, demonstrating clear notability per WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licatatom (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is recognized in high-profile publications, has substantial coverage that compiles with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Toopus (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He meets the criteria of WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Business of Fashion, Vogue, Elle, The Times of India, and The Hindu. These outlets provide in-depth coverage of his contributions in digital fashion, AI activism, and law. He also meets notability in the "Others" category with his media appearances in a Netflix show, his role in a documentary at the Cleveland International Film Festival, and his work in legal publications. DominicJoshua (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – For reasons stated above, this is GNG. Added additional coverage.

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Epping state by-election to be recreated if elected. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Tudehope

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

Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate; routine coverage is unhelpful for NBASIC. (NPP action) C F A 💬 22:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. C F A 💬 22:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct in that the creation of the article was premature as it fails WPNPOL, though I would suggest delaying any deletion process for two weeks until the Epping State By-Election as Tudehope may be elected, and would then warrant the existence of a page as is the practice with other NSW Parliamentary members including David Saliba, Jacqui Munro and Bob Nanva. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IE - Deleting a page only for it to be rewritten an republished in a fortnight. Keep the page for now. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature creation, Wikipedia is not the place for campaign advertising. Fails WP:NPOL. Routine election coverage does not equate to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unelected candidate, fails NPOL GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I struck out my previous !vote. She is the most likely candidate to be elected, the by-election is in a couple of weeks, and I think draftify would be the best option until the by-election date. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense and reiterates the point I made earlier. Thank you. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epping State By-Election. Premature creation, Wikipedia is not a home for political advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political candidate that fails WP:NPOL. We can recreate if she gets elected. LibStar (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As @GMH Melbourne said, it seems silly to delete an article only for someone to have to rewrite the same thing in two weeks time if she is elected. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't publish an article in mainspace about someone not yet elected to office. AusLondonder (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From a functional standpoint, I agree it would be unhelpful if Tudehope was elected in about three weeks' time and this article had been deleted by then. However, "she might be elected" is not a policy-based reason and keeping the article or dratifying it on that basis alone would not only violate policy but set a bad precedent. This reminds me of something similar that happened with a federal (national) candidate in Canada whose article was deleted and recreated twice because he was the hopeful, won in the preliminary voting, then lost by a narrow margin in the final count. Whose opinions are we giving unweight due to when we say that a candidate is the favourite to win? Why not create an article or draft for Duncan Voyage, in case he wins instead? From a policy standpoint, this article was created too soon and should not exist, and the arguments to keep it rely on contradictions of WP:FUTURE. Yue🌙 21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best option would be to redirect to 2024 Epping state by-election, where she is mentioned. It can be recreated from the page history if she wins the election, and is a suitable target regardless. C F A 💬 02:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to 2024 Epping state by-election (for the time being, anyway) seems like the best way to send readers somewhere relevant and preserve the page history. Draftifying would also be an acceptable choice, but deletion shouldn't be on the table when multiple ATDs are feasible. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tailored Truth

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

Fails the notability guideline for artists. The sources in the article that go into the subject in any detail look like paid promotion or press release copying; others have only passing mentions or no mentions at all. A quick look for more sources turned up nothing. It's also worth noting that the article was very possibly created for undisclosed payments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Michigan. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. I was also about to nominate this for deletion (I didn't think G11 would be accepted since this went through AfC) with substantially the same rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [22], in one line. That's all I can find for coverage. Long way from our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was one of the first pages I reviewed for AFC and I didn’t do as thorough of a check as I should have or would have done now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage consists of interviews (primary sources that do not establish notability), blogs, brief mentions, and hyper-local coverage. Does not meet WP:NARTIST criteria for a notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathías Tomás

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

No independent WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages and team-affiliated sources, for this football player and thus no pass of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Please ping me if I missed anything in my WP:BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, and Uruguay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is what I could come up with from Uruguay. However, I feel that one of the editors who are familiar with South American football should weigh in, i.e. User:BrazilianDude70, User:ImSnot, User:Unknown Temptation. Not because I have any anticipation whether they want to keep or delete, but because they know the language and the regional media well. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the tag. What I see on the statistics alone is that the player has spent more time in Greece, which is not my expertise. He was a regular player in 2023-24 Super League for Panserraikos and now into the second season, so I can theorise there is wider coverage. However, this comes with the challenge of searching his name in the Greek alphabet. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greek spelling is Ματίας Τομάς. I've found lots of results, but Google is listing match summaries. If there is a website which uses tags, you could follow the tag and see exactly what they are writing about him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, my BEFORE included the Greek transliteration and I didn’t turn anything up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kankanala Sports Group

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations. None of the reliable sources in the article contain significant coverage of the subject, only mentions or coverage of related subjects. Looking for more sources did not uncover anything promising. There's also a concern that the creator of this article has an undisclosed conflict of interest due to the sometimes less-than-neutral prose. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Badminton, Handball, Motorsport, and India. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Pearce

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

No independent WP:SIGCOV of this soccer player and thus no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Refunded after successful PROD so time for AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Missouri. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftify as an AtD (he is now a senior squad member for an MLS team so one would expect independent coverage before too long) although I worry we will be back here sooner than later if an editor returns the page to mainspace without going through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at his minimal statistics on available stat sites, he appears to have a future in soccer, but there is no WP:SIGCOV at this point. And though a Draftify is a solution because of WP:TOOSOON, I don't think he will get the SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG in the next six months. Demt1298 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. The nomination was indeed flawed, as one participant correctly pointed out. Poor article content should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion rationale. There is no policy support for deletion as a tool for rewriting an article about a notable topic, despite the popularity of the WP:TNT essay. That said, consensus is that this topic is not independently notable. Editors are welcome to selectively merge content into the target, if warranted. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no sources. Article is in an enormous mess and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title. WP:TNT. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why this can't be covered under the main Ceop article. This is a former program, that's been renamed, with no sourcing other than primary items. We don't need an old article to talk about something else; this is either notable or it isn't. I don't see coverage for this defunct website program thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I concur there is no reason for this as a stand alone article due to previously mentioned arguements, but I think it should redirect to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. Demt1298 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because the campaign has been run and appears active in other countries, such as Australia AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of primary coverage exists about the Australian campaign so either DISAMBIGUATE or keep as a Wp:SETiNDEX? Or simply keep, indicate there are UK and AUS campaigns and cut/improve....https://inews.co.uk/news/national-crime-agency-animated-series-jessie-and-friends-young-children-online-grooming-268647 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sharenting-warning-online-predators-are-asking-parents-to-facilitate-child-sexual-abuse/fcs1m1rhc https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/thinkuknow-program-launched-to-battle-online-porn-risk/8863942 not opposed to Redirect but then the Australian campaign should be mentioned in the dedicated section of CEOP (by a hatnote or in prose; NB the section does not yet exist, so technically implies a merge). I know this should not be an argument at AfD but still, this time I will say it, this is useful. I won’t bold anything but feel free to, if you think it should be made clear I suggest 3 or 4 different outcomes but not deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please check sources identified during the first Keep AfD. Thanks,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is have you seen the state of the article? It's no longer about the ThinkUKnow campaign, it's entirely about something else which is not notable. This mess should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mess, sure, but not the page :D. I will start. Feel free to revert my edits. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no references or any sources that support its statements. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article deletion is not the solution for badly written content, although blanking and redirection could be. However, this article has been completely rewritten since nomination and now is a stub that has 8 sources from 2 different countries. It can be improved and expanded upon. Potentially there are two different article here, but simply documenting the name is a first step. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nomination was purely about the current state of the page. If it's been hijacked and turned into something different then edit it, go back to the pre hijack page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Editors (novel)

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

Did a WP:BEFORE but I couldn't find enough to unambiguously pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The first source is an interview, which seems questionable as a source of notability for a book. The piece is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure. The second source is a local news station, which I think is of questionable notability. The third source "Numlock News" is a self-published substack blog which as far as I am aware does not count towards notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could neither find sources attesting to the notability of this book or its author. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forthcoming book. This is an exercise in naval=gazing. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: The book appears to be out now, having released on August 13 [23] [24]. As a side note, I tried looking up the praise from people like Taylor Lorenz and Omer Benjakob from the Amazon listing, and these don't appear to originate from any review that would provide NBOOK coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search finds insufficient evidence of notability. The author recently wrote an opinion article for The Guardian, but there doesn't seem to be a review or any other mention of the book on that newspaper's site. The second source referred to by Hemiauchenia is an interview (2 mins, 53 secs) on KAMR-TV, the NBC affiliate in Amarillo, Texas; search brought up a similar interview segment on the Texas version of Good Morning America, on WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas: 4 mins, 44 secs, hosted on Harrison's YouTube channel. Harrison has also uploaded a one-hour discussion of the book. None of these is fully independent and the TV interviews don't appear to have been picked up beyond the regional market. Our standards for notability of books are quite low, but without at least one independent published review in a reliable source, IMO they aren't met here. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Likely a TOOSOON situation. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LawCareers.Net

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEBCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find a single reliable source online. The best ones are in the article already, but aren't really about the topic. win8x (talking | spying) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Win8x. The sources cited are either not reliable or are tangential to the actual subject. Bearian (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Whalen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Whalen

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

notability; apparent self-promotion LoveGermanLit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see adequate sources here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not sufficient on WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. I don't know any film-specific guidelines well enough, but I can't imagine screenwriter for an art-house film that got only 6 credit reviews (none top prestige) would suffice there. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and worthy for expansion Tesleemah Talk 07:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though the discussion appears to be moving into delete, we're not seeing due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Arguments lack detail (especially from the keep !voter).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Finley

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Spirituality, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote I think most musicians deserve a chance Natlaur (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any non-trivial coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veetuku Veedu Vaasapadi

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

The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE was unable to find any significant coverage showing how this would be independently notable. Two editors (including myself) attempted to redirect to original Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii but IPs (likely LOGOUTSOCKin) have challenged so here we are. Would have recommend a redirect as an AP:ATD but doesn't seem that is an option at this point since that was challenged. CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii#Adaptations: given the existing coverage; not opposed to Keep if other users think a standalone page is OK. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The series was re edited, and also added more value References from The Times of India ([25],[26], The Indian Express, The Hindu Tamil, www.dinamani.com . Disney official webseit www.disneystar.com ([27]) also published about the series. This is remake serial from Hindi version but, story was changed. Hindi version has lot of story change and story leap... the tamil version only take it from hindi story concept. --P.Karthik.95 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references you linked to above fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which demonstrates exactly why this is not a notable topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE or REDIRECT: Poor sources and little notability. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Uglydoll#Proposed television series without prejudice against a selective merger. Owen× ☎ 21:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uglydolls (TV series)

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

No independent reliable sources confirm that there will be an upcoming TV series with this title. This is a hoax. GTrang (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uglydoll: or UglyDolls. This is a 2019 project that crashed but it received a lot of coverage, which includes https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/stx-wanted-uglydolls-to-be-a-franchise-instead-they-got-a-flop-173711.html https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/stx-wanted-uglydolls-to-be-a-franchise-instead-they-got-a-flop-173711.html https://variety.com/2019/film/news/china-alibaba-stxs-uglydoll-franchise-1203105602/ https://www.thewrap.com/stx-entertainment-inks-partnership-with-alibaba-to-produce-finance-more-uglydolls/ etc etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the best target is: Uglydoll#Proposed_television_series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's not independently notable. Could merge but there's nothing really to merge that isn't at the target of Uglydoll#Proposed television series. (I guess describing it as an "upcoming" series is maybe hoaxy but also could be a good faith misunderstanding of when the story was from. Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people involved in the Maratha Empire

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

List fails WP:NLIST. The list as a whole is not described in reliable sources. GTrang (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maratha Empire had a very significant impact on Indian history. It spanned more than 100 years and rule over majority of India. So it is very notable. Crashed greek (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not have noticed that this AfD is not about the notable Maratha Empire article, Crashed greek, but instead about List of people involved in the Maratha Empire. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:SAL. Above "keep" vote is extremely unconvincing for the reasons outlined. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NLIST. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Victory (Cian Ducrot album) as an unopposed ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me (Cian Ducrot song)

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

Restore redirect to Cian Ducrot. Fails WP:NSONG. This song lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sourcing appears to be based on this press release in which the author discusses his inspiration for the song. I have been unable to find independent analysis of the song outside of reviews of the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Ireland. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victory (Cian Ducrot album): found no additional coverage and agree that what's present is no good. Redirecting a song to the album it's from is standard, and charting information can be merged there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that redirect target instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Opened at the same time as another editor. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hall (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was improperly draftified and restored, PRODed and then de-PRODed. I agree that Hall is not notable—I've been unable to find significant coverage of him—but I think this would benefit from discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Illinois. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to REO Speedwagon. Owen× ☎ 21:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hall (musician)

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

Fails WP:NBIO despite being known for his work as the bass guitarist, backing and lead vocalist for the rock band REO Speedwagon. GTrang (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Illinois. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect: I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I’m astounded that nobody has ever written a secondary source on a leader of such a notable band. The usual outcome is to redirect rather than delete. Bearian (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. I found this. Bearian (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to REO Speedwagon per common sense. A major part of that band and anything relevant that can be sourced should be included there. --Michig (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grubb

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

After three declined by three reviewers, the page creator continued resubmitting without properly reviewing the decline reason. Aside that, the sources aren't reliable, and this individual doesn't meet WP:NATH. More opinions are usually expressed in AFDs. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a soccer coach with the same name, not sure if it's him or not. Regardless, there is no sourcing for this crossfit athlete, with only database listings now used for sourcing. I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless someone is able to point out the significant coverage, I cannot find anything in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superman's Metropolis

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for these comics. I did search to find a bit of reception, but I can only find Valnet sources, which are not reliable, and even those are limited. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also bundling this with the two comics in the same series, which have the same issues. The Batman one only has one reliable source that I can find.

Di (they-them) (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (South African artist)

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

This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It only contains a link to the artist's online store. The subject does not meet the guidelines of WP:ARTIST nor WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any RS for this promotional article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kean (musician)

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon --- FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, demonstrates notability for point one and six. A few sources independent of the individual that show more than trivial interest, breaking down his playing style/technique, how he got started on bass in his early life and influences: [28], [29]. Point six mentions, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia all have individual articles showing independent notability through musical collaborations and features, as well as production. Shout4Serenity (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BANDMEMBER:Individual members: Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. --FMSky (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you tried to remove an article when someone did demonstrate individual notability, doing so with the same argument for Lee Malia just for being a band member even though he was clearly notable. If the guideline says about this and three musicians in the band are notable in their own right outside of the band, then surely Matt Kean is protected under this guideline? Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."

Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The content of Kean's article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Bass, EMG Pickups, Guitar Parts and the BBC.

· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.

· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.

· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

While there's nothing currently in the article about this, there are likely articles online discussing Kean on tour which should be added to help demonstrate his independent notability.

· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)

Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.

· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Kean is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.

· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Kean is a prominent bass guitarist in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on guitar magazines specifically about him as a bassist. If he wasn't notable, a guitar magazine would not be using him as the headline of the magazine.[30]

· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammy award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.

· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.

Kean has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.

· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.

He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.[31]

· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.

· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Kean appeared on BBC Sport's Premier League Predictions that former professional footballer Mark Lawrenson hosts.[32]

Out of all the independent notability guidelines, there are only TWO he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but TEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my point as per above, Matt Kean also qualifies for WP:COMPOSER. He is also credited as a song writer on some of the bands biggest hits including "Drown" (the band's only UK Top 20 single), "Throne" (UK Platinum-selling single) and "Mantra" (Australian Platinum-selling single). By virtue of this, he ticks off two of the composers criteria for notability, as well as the previous ten I've mentioned for MUSICBIO above. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Displays notability per above points. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jigsaw puzzle. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle globe

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

At very best, this subject deserves a sentence or two in an article on jigsaw puzzles. Qwirkle (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Which are already there, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to jigsaw puzzle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-A460

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

I couldn't find evidence that this is a notable product. There are various Samsung-related articles it potentially could be redirected to as an WP:ATD, but none stand out as ones that are suitable. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Race Cars

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Challenge (competition)

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

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

Article is not fit for main article space - too many problems with language, grammar, style, etc., but Draft:Ijaz Hussain Batalve already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is good enough and unique...grammar or language may be corrected...Article should be retained. Mottoo99 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the grammar and language first, in the draft article, then move it to mainspace? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bastun, as you said, a draft exist for this, so why not put in a history merger template before an AFD? Even if it goes through not, at least give it a try! Intrisit (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On which version? One contains at least one copyright violation (now removed)? Simpler to just have the draft to work on, then have that go through AFC? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I would say to draftify it again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a notable lawyer and a law professor per some of the sources in the article. AFD is not a place for article cleanup but to delete articles falling below notability thresh hold. What this article needs is cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Piscili (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not at issue. The subject is absolutely worthy of an article. Agreed, AfD is not a place for article cleanup. Draftspace is. This article is not currently fit for article mainspace though - a lot of what's there makes literally no sense - sorry to be harsh, but some is just gibberish. But the article can't be moved to draft space because there is already a draft article there, and nobody bothered going through WP:AFC, they just copied and pasted back to a mainspace article. If the article is kept, I will be removing a lot of the content that makes no sense, the unsourced, and the hagiographic and unencyclopedic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge to draft then delete: Looks to be a copy-paste fork from the draft. Needs significant language work, which is an appropriate use of draftspace. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Made Agus Mahayastra

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

The subject fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Being the head of a third-level subdivision in Indonesia, essentially an elected local official, does not guarantee notability unless they also meet GNG criteria, which in this case, they do not. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 120

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Uzbekistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Accident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lynn Okamoto#Works. ✗plicit 14:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono

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

I can't find enough reliable secondary sources covering this work. Although the author is notable, there is no evidence that this series is. Xexerss (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not able to find anything about this as well, and the current sources in the article look unsuitable. Frost 15:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lynn Okamoto#Works; as per nom and my own search, which found little beyond what's already in the article. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lynn Okamoto#Works, work fails WP:NBOOK. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is no reasonable prospect of any consensus in favour of deletion. Editors noting that the article needs work can continue to do so either boldly or on the talk page. This can alternatively be read as a SK1 close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical raw materials

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

This article is in very bad shape. It just lists random raw materials a few countries deem important. I feel like this information is insufficient for a stand-alone article, so should probably be merged or deleted altogether. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did write on the talk page that it needs expansion and I will be doing some of that myself. Nor are the raw materials "random", one of the points of expansion is the how and why the countries make these lista (EU + US is not a "few" and I will be adding the UK, etcetera). Merged with what? The article has just gone up, what's the big hurry to delete it? Wait a while and if it isn't expanded, then nominate it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with all due apologies, doesn’t seem to have a single focus. Either we need to userfy it, or decide what needs to be cut out in the next week or so. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bit baffled by this comment, what are the multiple foci? From my perspective, the focus is on critical materials as designated by governments around the world and it easily meets GNG for that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the statement that doing an AfD ~2.5 hours after creation is a bit too rapid. I think the topic is notable, albeit the page needs work. Since the original editor is currently changing it a lot I would be OK with Draftify; I do think delete is too harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Africa. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced list. Does not meet the requirements of WP:V. Frost 15:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao

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

The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Google Books provide no results at all for "Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao" or the original title "Northern Conquest of Raghunath Rao". The editor has arbitrarily linked various battles of his own choice into a single conflict, not supported by any RS. Also, note that the orginal creator has been banned for sockpuppetry, and multiple sockpuppets have often tried to restore the article after other editors redirected the page. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Delhi, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly lacks notability as a singular subject. Much of the content fails verification and tries to blow out of proportion the historical significance of the events involving the winning states, as is typical with these socks. Noting to @Crashed greek that PadFoot was merely restoring the "backdoor deletion" rightly done by Sitush in October 2023 but repeatedly undone without just reason by socks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Sitush mentioned by you is not an administrator with speedy deletion privilege. Crashed greek (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be. "Backdoor deletion" (less pejoratively referred to as WP:BLARing) can be done by any user. The only reason to revert such "deletion" would be if you have an actual objection to the reasons for the article's blanking and redirecting. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Maratha Empire expanded from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar due to this campaign. It is a very big territory he captured, so very notable campaign. Crashed greek (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do sources say that this "campaign" as one coherent subject even existed? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which sources even claim this extent, or even associate a campaign by this name to this made-up exaggerated extent. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more exaggeration, misrepresentation, and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is full of WP:SYNTH and was written by confirmed sockpuppets, which is unfortunately common within this contentious topic area. Synth has no place here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fish Karma. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch with the Devil

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fish Karma. Found no additional coverage myself, and Tucson Weekly alone is not enough. I suspect the artist's article probably doesn't meet notability standards either, but redirecting there for now is fine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fish Karma. toweli (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The lack of coverage is the issue. Habst, if you would like this as a Draft to see if you can find coverage I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 14:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Abdi Hassan

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

Non-notable. Only sources are entries in tables showing the individual participated in the Olympics. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV that could be used to help this subject, one of the many WP:LUGSTUBS overfilling this site still, meet the WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear redirect target. Let'srun (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Runner is a multiple-time international gold medallist satisfying WP:NATH and he has been covered in print media under his Arabic name "جمال عبدي حسن". A lot of print media from his era hasn't been digitized, but there are some remnants of prose online i.e. from Al Jazeera. He also had a viral moment falling on the water jump at the '96 Olympics which caused him to not make the finals. I don't have the text yet (working on it), but I know for a fact that infamous fall was covered in a The Times issue (transcribed in a news stream here) so that's another avenue for sourcing. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think enough breadcrumbs are here to justify keeping the article with some work. --Habst (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources. The Al Jazeera source above has all of one sentence on him in a list of event results, and categorically does not count towards notability. In the 5000m race, Qatari Jamal Abdi Hassan Abdullah came in seventh with a time of 13.04.65. Moroccans Salah Hissou and Abdel Rahim Al-Ghomri came in eleventh and sixteenth with a time of 13.16.87 and 13.36.08 respectively.
We have zero indication that anything in The Times is non-routine SIGCOV, or even anything beyond a photo caption. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources -- can you please provide a policy source that states this? It's definitely not supported by the text of NATH or the WP:NSPORTS2022 consensus on this issue. WP:NEXISTS is a valid policy to cite in this context while we work to comb through print media from the 1990s. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do people have to explain to you that meeting SPORTCRIT is required for an athlete to meet NSPORT? You can meet a sport-specific sub-criterion via achievement, but you still have to meet NSPORT for any presumptions of coverage to apply. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions here and hope you can extend the same respect to me. I think that WP:NATH and WP:SPORTCRIT are two separate parts of NSPORT without a clearly defined relationship to each other. Prong 2 of NATH is clearly met here by the subject's multiple international medals in distance running. To say that NATH isn't satisfied despite that simply isn't supported by the policy.

Also, NSPORT is only a guideline along with other more established guidelines such as WP:NEXISTS. If we can determine together that coverage exists of this athlete meeting the bar for notability, a keep vote would be justified. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread "NATH" as a synonym for "NSPORT". But regardless, all sport-specific criteria are subordinate to the overarching requirements at SPORTCRIT. Otherwise SPORTCRIT #5 would make no sense and the robust consensus at NSPORT2022 would be functionally ignored. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, if a consensus is functionally ignored, then that means it's not actually a consensus. I don't think your description of NSPORTS2022 matches the text of the summary, which says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support, which includes WP:NATH as a part of NSPORTS. Speaking of subordination, all of NSPORTS is subordinate to broader guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NEXISTS, so if we can fulfill those, there is no need to fulfill SPORTCRIT.

If we delete this article, my understanding is we would effectively be saying that Abdi Hassan is the only steeplechase Olympian since 1924 to have not met the notability guidelines. I'm not ruling out that it's possible, but it certainly deserves more effort than we have put in so far. For example, prompted by the below comment I looked at the page history and found several alternative names for the subject we can use as leads for name-searching. --Habst (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus has been observed in literally thousands of AfDs by this point. Only a very small cohort of editors ignore it or are ignorant of it. Your understanding of PAGs is clearly at odds with the rest of the community's. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, my views are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines which I strive to follow. If you have a particular issue, please cite the policy or guideline which you think I misinterpreted and we can discuss it. As I said before, I greatly respect your work and viewpoints here, and I hope that we can converse respectfully without resorting to personal comments. --Habst (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies is invalid because the same discussion didn't find a consensus to deprecate the entirety of NSPORT, and therefore its pre-RfC guidance is still in effect. As if following (your misreading of) one of the sub-outcomes of that RfC moots all of the findings of consensus for change in the same closing statement, all the subsequent consensuses at NSPORT for implementing those changes, and all the thousands of AfDs and major followup RfCs like LUGSTUBS 1 & 2 enforcing those changes.
Stop wasting people's time with this trolling. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I'm following my understanding of the consensus. a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies -- that's not what the consensus was, per Special:Diff/1246440039, an athlete biography could still be kept even if it doesn't cite a GNG-contributing source as long as it fulfills broader policies like WP:NEXISTS. This is a direct quote from the person who established SPORTCRIT: SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule.

I still appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia which we are both here to build. Your last comment was unnecessary. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022, repeatedly tried to stifle its implementation, and was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5, as if his opinion reflects any kind of consensus. And anyway we have the creator of SPORTCRIT #5 also saying in the same discussion that Such circumstances are very rare, and I've only come across one circumstance in the past two years (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier) where I concluded that it was appropriately applied. That is far from the application of NBASIC you have been attempting so you should interpret #5 as overriding it.
If you're going to keep making utterly nonsensical claims about NSPORT I'm going to continue calling them out. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for this information. Can you please link to the ANI archive where Cbl62 was cautioned to for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT prong 5? I tried searching and couldn't find it. I also searched for your quote ("Such circumstances...") at both WP:Articles for deletion/Esraa Owis and WP:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier and couldn't find it.

Regardless, when I use WP:NEXISTS I assure you it's based in policy and made in good faith. If you disagree with the sources existing, please make claims to that effect. Broad guidelines like GNG and NEXISTS are not invalidated just because there is some smaller subject-specific guideline on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not Cbl62. I guess "warning" isn't the right term given its more specific meanings here, but certainly cautioned: BeanieFan11 should still be well aware that that warning did enjoy significant support and the consensus may be more clear if this comes up again.
NEXISTS doesn't mean you can just assume coverage exists merely because the subject meets your arbitrary presumptive standards. JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022 ... [who] was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5 – FWIW, there was no warning given at that ANI, which resulted in no consensus. You also enlisted that argument at the Vehmeier AFD; as an admin said there, There was no consensus to warn anyone at ANI and you should strike the comment as incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have used "cautioned". I forget "warning" has a specific meaning here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the son of Jamal Abdi. I keep editing this wiki page because of some information. It has come to my attention that the page is in threat of deletion, I would greatly appreciate it if we don’t decide to delete it. 78.101.160.239 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Copied from talk page. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rutledge

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

Couldn't find any sources, just some images of his work. This unreliable blog states, "When compared to his widely recognized contemporaries, Richard Rutledge remains relatively obscure today. Little is known about the slightly enigmatic photographer". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: but with regret and reluctance. Rutledge seems to have been a prolific photographer[her whose work was often published in Vogue. However it has proved impossible to find online references. Obviousy his date of death militates against the online world, yet archived copies are being digitised all the time. If verifiably notable later n it will not be hard to write a substantially different article from this rather sparse stub. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Photography. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Laird

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't much coverage and hasn't played in an acceptable league. Frost 16:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment does not seem to have attained the level notability that would justify an article at this time. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tamasha (TV series). Star Mississippi 13:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha (season 3)

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

Articles on the previous two seasons of this TV series are redirects to Tamasha (TV series) and I don't believe this one meets GNG either. I suggest merging it into the main Tamasha article and in-fact, I attempted to do this, but my edit was reverted, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it meets GNG criteria. And as far as the previous two seasons are concerned. It doesn't matter if previous seasons have their respective pages or not; it should be judged independently on GNG criteria. There is more information which will be added to the page such as day by day activities which will be difficult to include in the Shows main page. Toafzaal (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series): Agreed as per nom. Would be better consolidated with other two seasons. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1980s. Star Mississippi 13:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight F-637

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1980s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Savar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Colony Model School and College

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

Deleted via PROD last year, recently recreated as a translation of bn:রেডিও কলোনি মডেল স্কুল এন্ড কলেজ. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG, so fails WP:NSCHOOL. Searches in English and Bengali found nothing but passing mentions and indiscriminate directory listings. Without significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dhaka District, where it is not presently mentioned, but where a section on the district schools would be due. There is only enough information for a few lines in such a section. Insufficient sourcing to meet GNG for a standalone page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge, although a district in Bangladesh is a very large area (like a state or province elsewhere, not a school district), so I would suggest Savar (the municipality where Radio Colony is located) as a better target. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm content with this alternative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lamberti

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are interviews, WP:SPS sources and passing mentions. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, South Africa, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Schnellenkamp

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

Request for deletion of the Wikipedia article about Klaus Schnellenkamp due to lack of relevance according to the WP guidelines. These state that public reporting on the person in question must be independent of time or over a long period of time. However, there was only selective reporting, and this was done around 15 years ago. Hence the deletion request!KSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)KSWKSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Chile. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Happy to restore on request as a pseudo PROD as there's zero sign of input forthcoming and no one is arguing for retention. Star Mississippi 02:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep some, merge or redirect some‎. Specifically, The Adventuress of Henrietta Street and Unnatural History (novel) are kept since I can't see any reasonable prospect for arriving at a consensus to delete. As for the other three, there seems to be some consensus to either redirect or merge. What and how much can be left to a merge discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages, and any suggested action here might be altered by said discussion on those talk pages.

Might I also suggest for next time, that WP:MERGEPROP, as a more flexible discussion format, might more easily handle this type of situation where each article might have a different result and the most "delety" result needed is a redirect, which nobody seems to object to. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV; should be deleted, or merged or redirected into Faction Paradox DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons (though the last one has a plot summary; however, the other issues still persist):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge rest. The obvious redirect is Eighth Doctor Adventures, but there are various merge choices. Faction Paradox works for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, but the individual authors may make more sense for some material. I’ve just added a citation to Unnatural History, which is the most developed article and I suggest worth keeping. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unnatural History (novel), (very selectively), redirect all the others to Eighth Doctor Adventures. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV besides the single mention of Unnatural History in Women in Doctor Who, which is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Otherwise nothing on Google Scholar, Google Books, or JSTOR. All the articles besides Unnatural History are too short for there to be much point in merging. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unclear why you said there was nothing on Google Scholar. I've just found a second citation there (Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Narratives) and have added it to the article. I've also added a third citation. Let's do some proper WP:BEFORE work. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've just added three citations for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. Butler goes into some depth discussing it. I suggest keep for Adventuress, Unnatural and Angel. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor has been characterised as a Messianic figure lots of time, it's not notable enough for an entire article, at best it should be merged into Faction Paradox, Angel uses unreliable sources, should be redirected/merged, and same for the other two; keep Unnatural. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as different outcomes are being proposed without identifying what happens with each subject which really complicates a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles about 5 books from the same series have been nominated together, so, yes, apologies, the discussion has become complicated. To attempt to summarise my position... if any of these are deleted, a redirect should be left to the book series, Eighth Doctor Adventures.

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street: I have expanded this since nomination. I propose Keep. If not, then there is content to be Merged into the Faction Paradox article.
The Shadows of Avalon: I've not touched this. I propose Delete.
The Taking of Planet 5: I've not touched this. I propose Keep, but the article definitely needs work.
The Blue Angel (novel): I have expanded this since nomination. I propose Keep. If not, then there is content to be Merged into the Paul Magrs (the author) article.
Unnatural History (novel): I have expanded this since nomination. The proposer has changed their view to keep, so I think that counts as the AfD being withdrawn.

I hope that provides some clarity. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Henrietta Street and Unnatural History per WP:HEY based on Bondegezou's additions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Making my position clear (also, merge/redirect to Faction Paradox, not Eighth Doctor Adventures, it's kind of a specific sub-series of the EDAs)
- The Shadows of Avalon and The Taking of Planet 5: Delete or redirect (Reason- Nothing significant about these books)
- The Blue Angel (novel): Merge or redirect (Reason- same as above, but it has gotten some coverage)
- The Adventuress of Henrietta Street: Merge (Reason- Not notable in of itself)
- Unnatural History (novel): Keep (Reason- seems just about notable enough now)

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found
1. For The Adventuress of Henrietta Street:
  1. Beardsley, Paul (June–July 2002). "Doctor Ho-Hum and the Scribes of Metafiction 3". Interzone. No. 180. p. 58. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The review notes: "The Adventuress of Henrietta Street by Lawrence Miles is mostly set in London in 1782, and sees the Eighth Doctor Who running a brothel. It is a long novel and it is written in the style of a history text- book. It is demanding, and rewarding for the most part. The historical insights are utterly fascinating, and some of the fantastic imagery is very powerful indeed. However, there were many occasions when I found myself wishing I was reading a “pure” history book by, say, Dr David Starkey and/or a straightforward adventure story with minimal exposition."
  2. Michael, Matt (July 2003). "Further Adventures Books". Doctor Who Magazine. p. 77. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "A new arc begins with The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, another Lawrence Miles novel, which introduces ongoing villain Sabbath, a human time traveller who thinks that the Doctor and his people are responsible for the worsening problems with Time. It also has the Doctor binding himself to the fate of Earth, tearing out his diseased second heart in a symbolic gesture that makes him more human than ever before. Sabbath subsequently crops up in many of the EDAS, seeking to impose his own laws on Time, and being continually frustrated by the Doctor."
  3. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: The Adventuress of Henrietta Street -> At the limit of human consciousness was the "horizon", and beyond that was the Kingdom of the Beasts and the babe- wyns, bestial ape creatures. The destruction of Gallifrey destabilised time, allowing the babewyns to escape to Earth at the point when humans were beginning to con- ceive of time as a dimension. The eighth Doctor arrived in this era, suffering physical symptoms as a result of his being linked to his homeworld, which no longer existed. He allied himself with a brothel owner and ritualist, Scarlette. Together, they agreed that the Doctor should marry Juliette, a young woman working in the brothel, as this would link him to Earth and allow him to serve as its protector."
2. For The Shadows of Avalon:
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 409. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Shadows of Avalon -> President Romana now put the survival of the Time Lords over more ethical considerations. While she was concerned with the dispute with the People of the Worldsphere, Romana was aware that the War with the unknown Enemy would soon be upon Gallifrey. Learning that the eighth Doctor's companion, Compassion, was mutating into a TARDIS thanks to her contact with future technology, Romana sent Interventionist agents Cavis and Gandar to capture her. Romana planned to force Compassion to breed with other TARDISes. Compassion made her transformation into a TARDIS, but the Doctor rescued her and they fled the Time Lord authorities."
3. For The Taking of Planet 5:
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 38. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Taking of Planet 5 -> A Celestis outcast became concerned that the Celestis base of Mictlan might attract the Swimmers—beings large enough to crush the universe. The outcast hoped to destroy Mictlan before this occurred. Using a Fictional Generator, the outcast brought the Elder Things from HP Lovecraft's work to life in Antarctica. This attracted Time Lord shock troops from the future, who slaughtered the Elder Things and subsequently readied a fleet of War-TARDISes. They intended to break the time-loop around Planet Five, hoping to use the Fendahl trapped within against the Time Lords' future Enemy."
4. For The Blue Angel (novel):
  1. I found a passing mention here.
5. For Unnatural History (novel):
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 199. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Unnatural History > A dimensional scar, the after-effect of the singularity that befell Earth on New Years Eve, 2000, appeared in San Francisco. The eighth Doctor investigated the anomaly, but his companion Samantha Jones was lost to it. He sought out Sam's original self, a dark-haired drug user, to assist. The Doctor also recruited Professor Joyce, a resident of Berkeley, to craft a dimensional stabilizer."
I think there is enough coverage for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. For the other books, if they cannot be shown to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, I recommend a merge/redirect to Eighth Doctor Adventures.
Cunard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard. I've used those finds to make some additions to Unnatural History (novel), The Taking of Planet 5 and The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While these are good sources to make additions to the articles, I don't think they are independent enough to grant notability; one can always find mention of any DW media in DWM given that it is the official magazine (and BBC is ofcourse involved, might count as advertising), and AHistory mentions every DW story- does not make it anymore notable than as a part of the Faction Paradox or EDAs. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that DWM has some independence issues. I note that Ahistory is an unauthorised (i.e. independent of the BBC) book about Dr Who and related fiction by an unrelated publisher. It is, thus, independent of the makers of Dr Who or the publisher of these books. Interzone is also an independent source. Bondegezou (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Virgin New Adventures. which was not seconded, however nor was it refuted. Star Mississippi 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) ETA Bernice Summerfield can also be considered as a target. Star Mississippi 13:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Romance

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to Bernice Summerfield; one of its sections deal with the VNAs that she is the primary character in, and even the Bernice Summerfield section at VNA's article links there. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Brazier, Paul (August 1999). "War, Who & the Web". Interzone. No. 146. p. 62. Retrieved 2024-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "There is nothing challenging about this book. It is a Ten-Little-Indians archaeological romp with a certain amount of self-doubt and self-pity for Benny. People do heroic things and people die horribly, and the serial killer and the truth are duly revealed, and Benny doesn’t stuff up quite as badly as she thought. I enjoyed this book simply as an undemanding romp; I didn’t like The Mary-Sue Extrusion for its involuted knowingness, although I am sure there are people who would admire the skill with which it is carried off; and I enjoyed Dead Romance a lot because it made me reconsider solipsism all over again. If there is one thing I do like, it is variety in my diet, and those people at Virgin Books certainly seem to be supplying that."
I found one review that provides significant coverage about the book. If a second review that provides significant coverage about the book can be found, this article can be kept. If a second review cannot be found, I support a merge to Virgin New Adventures.
Cunard (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this source is sufficient or whether or not a Merge would be preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saeed Khosravi

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Mian

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

Editors tend to believe that AFC is fabricated with accepting special drafts and abandoning others. Very funny. I don't see how this drat, now an article, meets WP:GNG. Owing a non notable company doesn't show notability in any way. The article is very promotional, and doesn't appear to be notable in the future (eye sighted observation). A community consensus would clearly address its problem. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though firstly to nom, you didn't have to accept the draft if you thought it non-notable, even though it had waited a while (the fact it had waited suggests others felt the same). That aside, reviewing a number of refs doesn't sway me away from concurring with the nom statement. The entire "early life" section is cited to a google drive(!), and the apparent relevant file doesn't give me confidence in its integrity. The second paragraph isn't even about the subject, less the last paragraph, which tries to imply notability because he "built a big house". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Keon-myung

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of K League games. Prod was tried many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 12:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Sun-il

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of K League games as well as some in lower divisions. Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Yongfeng

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 15 games in Hong Kong and nothing else. Sources are WP:ROUTINE at best. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fonti

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this Australian rules footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences of coverage here interspersed between some quotes, and this routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Too soon, not enough sources that fit the GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep, the presence of the West Australian articles and the Cairns Post article should satisfy nSport. GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: doing a decent WP:BEFORE check is difficult these days with the major Aussie papers going behind paywalls, but Newsbank had 3 items of significant coverage from independent sources, which I've added to the article. The-Pope (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. Nom fails to explain why this should be deleted when a clear alternative to deletion exists in redirecting to List of Greater Western Sydney Giants players. Plus keep per his holiness's improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON directly suggests draftification. Two of the three third-party sources ostensibly cover the same event while the third has some four sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If TOOSOON directly suggests draftification then why did you nominate for deletion? Plus I'd rather go with a policy that has a sensible outcome than an essay that has a pointless outcome. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because draftification is a possible outcome of an AfD? JTtheOG (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on review, coverage of Fonti in The West Australian and The Cairns Post satisfies GNG. – Teratix ₵ 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Sellers

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this young Australian rules footballer. Draftify until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: additional independent sources found and added. The-Pope (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in AFL.com.au (1, 2) and Zero Hanger satisfies GNG. – Teratix ₵ 08:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. Nom fails to explain why this should be deleted when a clear alternative to deletion exists in redirecting to List of North Melbourne Football Club players. Plus keep per his holiness's improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Härnösand FC United

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

I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The relatively new club has languished in the lowest tiers, peaking on the sixth tier. I know Swedish but can't find any sources that are not WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or WP:ROUTINE. Similar clubs have been deleted in recent times, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Geschichte (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Case identical to that of other recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 12:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsian IF

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

I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The relatively new club has languished in the ninth tier and above, peaking on the sixth tier. Similar clubs have been deleted in recent times, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Geschichte (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Iran, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Case identical to that of other recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Carry

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

From the sources provided by the article and my own research, I have come to the conclusion that Florida Carry as an organization has not received significant media coverage as per WP:SIRS' notability criteria. The articles cited mention Florida Carry only in passing or in one sentence, and do not maintain the focus upon the organization for the source to be considered significant. However, while I was looking over the references cited, I noticed that Florida Carry apparently authored House Bill 463, which was passed in 2012. The article in question: [33], and the bill in question: [34].

If better coverage can be found of Florida Carry as an organization or its actions, then there would be a stronger case for cleaning up the article instead of deleting it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms, and Florida. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Most references to the organization are minor, and the majority of the sources are merely links to the bills that they supported. Their actions are also somewhat irrelevant considering the activities of larger organizations that likely made a much larger impact on the bills in question. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. czar 12:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Wood

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not produce any WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerthings7112 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Filing this on behalf of Strangerthings7112, who made a malformed nomination attempt. Left guide (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was part of an important lawsuit dealing with libel and people who were once famous but later in life were not. Significant coverage of Wood was found so her notability is not WP:INHERITED from Elvis. Added sources including newspaper articles, books, and law journals. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage, and Anita Wood was never famous. Practically everyone in the Elvis world was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another; the one you cite is no more important than this lawsuit involving Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden. Ginger Alden had much greater media visibility than Anita Wood, appeared on countless magazine covers and even published a memoir, yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. How do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? It's a double standard. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr vulpes. Also sorry for accidentally closing it, I misclick. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries I misread an AfD the other day and closed it by mistake. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references on Anita Wood are just mere mentions about her being Elvis' nonexclusive off-and-on girlfriend but you can't make an article out of that. So it fails WP:GNG. There is some coverage out there, but none of it is direct or significant. WP:GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" thus why she fails it. No notability except for casually dating a celebrity. And we all know that notability is inheritable per se. Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden had far greater media visibility than Anita Wood and even published a memoir yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. For those of you who oppose this deletion, how do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, Strangerthings7112, your deletion nomination is considered your Delete vote. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
There's an entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life.
Barrett, Jonnita Brewer (2012). Once upon a time: Elvis and Anita: memories of my mother. Jackson, MS: BrewBar Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9858056-0-9. OCLC 823306179.

Her defamation lawsuit is an important part of the law surrounding public figures right to privacy over time.
"John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc". United States Court of Appeals. 1976-09-13. Retrieved 2008-12-31.

Dato, Robert M. (1983). "The Effect of Passage of Time on the Status of Inactive Public Figures". Federal Communications Law Journal. 35: 235.

Duhart, Olympia R. (2002–2003). "When Time Stands Still: An Argument for Restoring Public Figures to Private Status". Nova Law Review. 27: 365.

Kaminsky, Alan (1981–1982). "Defamation Law: Once a Public Figure Always a Public Figure". Hofstra Law Review. 10: 803.

And this list of the databases, including the library of congress, that she appears in for her music.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those links copy the verbiage straight off Wikipedia (i.e. WP:MIRROR). I see nothing in WorldCat or the LoC about "her music" (the only music she did was uncredited backing vocals); her sole reason for inclusion seems to be her daughter's book. Ginger Alden also has an entry in the Library of Congress and WorldCat so again, these do not demonstrate notability. And as I've pointed out, practically everyone in the Elvis world, including Ginger Alden, was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another. Who's to say that Anita Wood's lawsuit is more "important"? Nothing you've provided constitutes WP:SIGCOV. The book you cite, written by her daughter, was published by a small local independent publisher in Mississippi whose only noticeable publication seems to be said book (whereas Ginger Alden's book was published by Ace Books, a major house in NYC). Since Ginger Alden's page warranted deletion, Anita Wood's most certainly warrants deletion too. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis:@SNUGGUMS:@Robert McClenon:@Davey2010:@Clarityfiend:@Johnpacklambert: Since each of you deemed the Ginger Alden page worthy of deletion, I request your input on deleting the Anita Wood page. Anita Wood is without doubt less notable than Ginger Alden so I see no reason to keep the page. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the Elvis in Australia page has copied some material from Wikipedia, but it's the rest of the interview that follows which is what the source is being used for. The other one is her obituary so and I'm not seeing anything copied over. Unless I'm missing something. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that Anita's hometown newspaper is the only outlet to report her passing. Had she met notability criteria the news would've been picked up by wire services. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Strangerthings7112's point immediately above actually may have some merit. If her obituary was only published in one local paper, there's a reasonable chance it was paid for by the family, which would disqualify that source from counting towards notability. WP:OBITUARIES may shed some light on this and other related issues. Left guide (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't examined those sources in-depth yet for SIGCOV, but from a cursory review "John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc" appears to fit the description of WP:RSLAW#Official summaries or syllabi which seems to be treated as a primary source, so likely doesn't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide I only put the court case in the AfD to help anyone looking at the law journals since it uses her married name Brewer instead of Wood. Personally I get kind of annoyed when reading law journals because the text is super tiny and sometimes OCR won't catch the case names correctly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life (link) was authored by the article subject's daughter, so clearly a WP:COISOURCE, not independent. Left guide (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Strangerthings7112: If you want to gain traction in persuading the community to delete this article, at a minimum you're going to have to cut out the "Alden" arguments per WP:OTHER. It's not relevant here; each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Also, as a side note, please refrain from posting comments to the AfD log page; I've had to clean up after you a few times. Instead, keep all of your commentary on this page, thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Left guide: It's not really a matter of WP:OTHER when one takes into account the fact that the Wikipedia entries for Anita and Ginger came into existence for exactly the same reason: that they dated Elvis. Unlike Linda for instance, neither woman has any notability outside their connection to him. And Ginger was unquestionably more significant in terms of coverage. So if Ginger's page got deleted, the standard should be upheld. Anita's page simply failed to get noticed when similar pages were being scrubbed. It has to be pointed out that Marco Garibaldi, June Juanico and Danny Keough all formerly had Wiki entries as well. And all were deleted on the same grounds: no notability outside their connection to Elvis. So to argue that this page should be kept is like saying Mary-Kate Olsen deserves a Wiki entry but Ashley Olsen doesn't. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangerthings7112, you have been advised already to stop bringing up Ginger Alden's article in this discussion and now I'm saying it a second time. The fact that this article was deleted has no effect on whether or not the article on Anita Wood is kept or deleted which will rest on its own merits. We don't compare articles in AFDs and there is no official precedence. Please critique the sources and not the subject and do not BLUDGEON the discussion and comment on every argument you disagree with. You nominated the article, have put forth your point of view and now it's time to hear from other editors. Repeating your view over and over again will not convince anyone to agree with you, it will just irritate people. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strangerthings7112: If you're really this motivated to delete the article, all of that energy might be better channeled into creating a source assessment table (or simply a bulleted list summarizing your view of each source if you're unable to work through the table coding). I for one, am curious to see a thorough analysis of all of the sources, and might be persuaded to !vote delete (I only nominated this as a clerical courtesy and haven't yet taken an official stance on the subject's notability), because from a cursory glance I've seen at least three or four sources that are disqualified from notability for various reasons, and ref-bombing is a very real possibility since there haven't yet been quotes of the source material provided by the keep !voters. Left guide (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just added and sourced a little of her background before she met Elvis. I have also added information from the Texas State Archives. Texas-based disc jockey and news media reporter Eddie Fadal first met Elvis, when Elvis had his basic Army training at Fort Hood (renamed Fort Cavazos) in Waco, Texas. He is well known for his close friendship with Elvis. According to Eddie, everyone believed Elvis and Anita would marry, and were really surprised when Elvis married someone else. There are images in many Elvis bios, where Elvis and Anita were spending time in Eddie's house. Graceland has often hired Eddie for fan gatherings at Graceland. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It doesn't constitute notability. There is no reason for Anita to have a Wikipedia page. If she has one then Ginger Alden's deleted page should be restored. For that matter, Danny Keough and Marco Garibaldi's deleted pages should be restored. Then what....a Wikipedia page for Currie Grant? The Stanley brothers? Cliff Gleaves? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Strangerthings7112 - Why are you canvassing users who have no historical association with the article to participate in the AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon because ten years ago you voted to delete or redirect the Ginger Alden article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has had significant coverage by reliable sources in two ways that are almost unrelated, as Elvis Presley's first girlfriend when he was a celebrity, and as a figure in an important civil law case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To answer the question about Ginger Alden, I looked at the article at the time that it was nominated for deletion in 2014, and the article at the time that I !voted to Delete or Redirect. I said in 2014 that the article was poorly sourced and did not establish general notability. It had no sources at the time it was nominated, and four unreliable sources that had been added in the next days when I !voted on it. This article has 18 sources, and I see that some of them are reliable. So any comparison between this article on Elvis Presley's first documented girlfriend and the cutdown article on Elvis Presley's last girlfriend is questionable, comparing a crab apple and a Red Delicious apple. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, and Tennessee. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like Dr vulpes has restored the Ginger Alden article. I'm not sure how that will influence this discussion since the nominator's argument rests on the fact that the Alden article was redirected (not deleted). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - The current Ginger Alden article has better sources than the one that was cut down to a redirect. As I said above, my object to the previous Ginger Alden article was mainly that its sources were rubbish. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There is definitely coverage to pass WP:GNG. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm assuming I was canvassed because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Alden too, Anyway keep per Dr V and everyone above, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So I found the time to dive into the sources in-depth and I discovered this newspaper article focused on Wood, this one focused on her involvement in the legal case, and this book which contains 45 mentions of her. I believe WP:NBIO is met here, even excluding the law journals which I don't have access to. Left guide (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chromebooks

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

There are hundreds of Chromebooks, including many that are not on this list. Of these, only a handful have been deemed notable for their own article. Not only is this list unwieldy and the scope too broad to be feasibly maintained, but the material also reeks of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:LISTCRUFT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (moved from leaning), I agree entirely with the nom statement that the scope of "list of chromebooks" is so broad and ever increasing, that it's simply not feasible to maintain the article as an up to date list which is all-encompassing. Even as a means of supporting a purchase for interested readers, the older devices become insignificant with the passage of time, except if becoming historically notable. Unless others counter with a sound retention rationale, i'm edging towards delete, as to rewrite into something different would probably be a WP:TNT job anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmed up "delete" vote, especially in light of original author also concurring with deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the person who created the article, only to get the excessively long list of info off the main Chromebook page, I'm happy for it to be deleted as unwieldy/unable to be maintained/trivial/excessively detailed for inclusion on WP. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not maintainable. List of Chromebook manufacturers may be doable but not this. Google's list is accessible one click from EL in Chromebook. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan. Star Mississippi 02:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Pakistan, Kyiv

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources 2 to 12 merely confirm previous and current ambassadors LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Pakistan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan: per ATD — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

AfDs for this article:

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

This streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Internet, Japan, and Canada. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject of the article has only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This article was just at AFD two months ago, why was a new discussion started up so soon? We advise more time between visits to AFD unless the content is severely problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her termination from her former employer is extensively covered at Nijisanji#Controversy and also has a sizeable paragraph at the end of VTuber#The VTuber trend. Currently, I see little merit for a standalone article on her current persona. Perhaps later in the future. Jotamide (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my previous nomination. Fails general notability criteria. The coverage of the article subject stems almost entirely from a single event (WP:1E), with the rest of the references being routine coverage of announcements (WP:ROUTINE). The article also seems like a content fork, as it covers a lot of material already present at Nijisanji. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Kulakov

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Most (if not all) of sources are self-published sources. GTrang (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see self-publishing sources. If you can see it, you may delete them. Not article at all. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources aren’t self-published, but I agree they are inadequate to support a biography as they do not demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV HBC

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not produce any WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Gidonb has found resources to improve article to meet WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Demt1298 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Demt1298, where did you look for sources? gidonb (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both English and Dutch Google for news stories on the club. If you have other sources, please update the article. I also reviewed the sources for the article and all but one would be considered closely related to the article. The one that doesn't covers a single event, which does not reach WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing NORG. This club exists since 1902 and has recently surged. Hence the SIGCOV is largely from the 21st century. Unfortunately, much of it behind paywalls. A lot has been written on the club also before and a good article can be written. I have expanded the article to reflect its 122 years of existence and added and removed references. Nom refers to references that are no longer there. Do rename to SV HBC. While the RK (Roman Catholic) has not entirely been dropped, the club is known as SV HBC. gidonb (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the 11 references now in the entry, there are many more articles on HBC here. The first ones are SIGCOV. Further down the list there is more data on the club. Also useful. gidonb (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gidonb - no comment on proposed rename, that probably should be a separate discussion. Giant Snowman 17:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mölnlycke Health Care. with history retained should there be a desire for a merger Star Mississippi 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epaderm

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

Did not see any information about the product outside of articles selling skincare products. Just seems to lack sources. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Books shows snippet views from several professionals healthcare handbooks, though whether these go beyond brief descriptions of the product is unclear. There is also a published study, visible on open-access: "A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm®, an Emollient Cream". AllyD (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the product's notability. The article mostly reads like a product description and lacks substantial third-party coverage or critical analysis--Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get an assessment of the source AllyD brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company that owns this brand. Prone to fails (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mölnlycke Health Care --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation and employee engagement

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

This article functions mostly as a cross between a lower quality version of Employee motivation and a dump of summaries of studies. I don't see how having the page is useful when Employee motivation and Work motivation both exist. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Hihyphilia, I see you are a relatively new editor. Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE before nominating this article? Did you assess the sources? Do you have a policy-based reason for arguing for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reassessing the sources and realized that the current page is a structured like a modified version of one of the sources (The thesis by Bergström, Emma; Garcia Martinez, Melanie (2016), cited 19 times). While I don't think the similarity is close enough to be a copyright violation, it is kinda sorta plagiarism? Quite a few of the sources seem more like someone picking sources that kinda look right from a google search, and don't support the text. I would need to visit a university library to 100% confirm they're bad though. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hihyphilia, thank you for the response to my query. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; a merge may work only if the above concerns of plagiarism are clarified and the content adds something sufficiently novel. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Noting the nomination was also withdrawn, but we're at time and consensus is clear so closing it this way to reflect that. Star Mississippi 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT history in Georgia

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

Redirect per wp:2DABS, unless there are more. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, Georgia (country), and Georgia (U.S. state). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is merge with LGBT history in Georgia and move that to LGBT in Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no primary topic, so the base name needs to host a disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARY Demt1298 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No primary topic. PamD 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguator in the absence of a clear primary topic, with a preference to Merge both LGBT history in Georgia and LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT in Georgia, making the latter the host DAB instead of a redirect to just one of them. I agree with other !votes that each should be kept as a form of disambiguation as there is no a clear primary topic between the two, however I don't see why we can't redirect this to a more general article title which broadly covers the history and rights articles together. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I have clarified my position that I concur with retaining as disambiguator without a clear primary topic, but with a preference to see it merged into a wider article title. @MikutoH: The consensus is fairly clear against a redirect as proposed, and you may wish to withdraw in the absence of any contrary expression. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I was going to do this right after I proposed as I wanted to merge, but as suggested above, a merge proposal is necessary and I will rquest when closing this. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARYas above. The merge between two pages not under discussion in this AfD may well be a good idea, but (a) I don't see why they should then assume the status of primary topic over an eponymous country, so the merged title should remain LGBT history in Georgia (U.S. state), (b) neither of the pages for merge are the subject of this AfD so it should be done as a merge discussion, (c) that merge would, in any case need to precede a following RM discussion, and page moves are not AfD outcomes. So all of that can be pursued separately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure a merge suggestion can form part of a discussion in an AfD, especially as renaming of pages is not actually a necessity to achieve that proposal. I also have no clue what you mean by point "a", perhaps there is a weak explanation on my part. Either way, I was clear that I agreed with the "keep" !votes in keeping the page as a means of disambiguating between two articles without a primary, but as the nom specifically mentioned the LGBT in Georgia (rights) article, I figured i'd offer a view on that too.

Besides, do we really need to have two DABs for the "history" and "rights" when we can just change LGBT in Georgia into a DAB article linking to all four? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is a valid outcome for a page nominated at AfD. It is inappropriate for a page that has not been nominated as watchers of the pages you propose merging will not be notified of the discussion, and will not necessarily have participated. That merge discussion needs to be pursued separately. Since you have modified your !vote, this is, in any case, now moot. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, a merge would be a nice idea to address separately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOPRIMARY, I'm sure this happens to other articles for Georgia and Georgia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good way to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preference is keep the status quo of two dabs per WP:NOPRIMARY. Merging the two into a single DAB would be acceptable as the line between the two is a bit fuzzy although I think in general we maintain both articles for many localities so having to is fine. Strongly oppose any sort of removing the dabs and replacing with a redirect to one with just a hatnote. That's been discussed many, many as a general concept between the two Georgias and the current consensus is clearly no primary so TWODABS suggests having a disambiguation page (see all the RMs in Talk:Georgia (country) for example). Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Armenia TV and Armenia Premium#Former/reran programming of Armenia TV. Star Mississippi 02:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Alphabet (Armenian TV series)

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG and my search revealed no WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Armenia. Demt1298 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I could find no significant coverage in RS, English or Armenian, to meet WP:GNG, as outlined in the essay WP:NTV. I sympathise with the article creator's long-term aim to get more Armenian coverage into English Wikipedia, but they keep adding non-notable television shows. There are so many notable Armenian topics missing, which would be warmly welcome. If kept, the title should be changed to Our Alphabet: no disambiguation is needed. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Armenia_TV_and_Armenia_Premium#Former/reran_programming_of_Armenia_TV -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter (businessman)

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

Promotional biography of a businessman with no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. While many references in the article have broken due to formatting errors, I tracked them down and found nothing to support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO -- it's a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, mentions in WP:TRADES publications and a couple profiles in non-independent sources. Similar coverage found in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: worth noting that this article was created by a now-blocked user. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party

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

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Single-issue_politics#Oceania~~ List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats: I couldn't find articles showing lasting impact other than an article that justifiably says their lasting impact is the absence of a commercial airport there Oblivy (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats - basically one guy who got fewer than 300 votes the one time he stood for election. it is an idiosyncrasy of NZ politics that anyone who can scrape up a deposit can say they are a party even if their unregistered "party" is basically a laptop and a printer. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Wikipedia). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party[35] and this from the government registering the logo[36]. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is when one of the other voting suggestions is “redirect to a list of parties” - there is an actual process to forming a political party in NZ, with steps and criteria to follow, none of which he managed to achieve. It’s like calling a lemonade stand your kids make a “company” because they drew a logo on the front - unless they legally incorporate, not a company. Don’t register as a party, not a party. Not a party, can’t be listed on a list of parties. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information that this organization appears to be a single person who never registered it as a political party, if the organization is not notable, then I do not think the redirects to "Single-issue politics" or "List of political parties in New Zealand" would be appropriate. While the redirect I suggested to Whenuapai may be acceptable as there are a few mentions in newspapers, given the discussion since I filed this AfD, that is probably excessive as well. I now think simply deleting is the most appropriate. – notwally (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral commission registered their logo and listed it on a report called "REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND LOGOS". What you say may make intuitive sense to you, but disregarding secondary sources in favor of our own opinions is OR. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source says nothing about registration of the party. It says "The Commission approved an application to register a logo for No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party". If the party had registered, it would presumably say "The Commission registered the [party name] and its logo". Also, the NZ Herald does not call actually call it a party either (outside of the WP:HEADLINE); the article says that the person "says he will form the party". Do you know of any sources saying that he did so? – notwally (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[2] "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[3] "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[4] "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Authority control databases – Anita Wood
International	VIAF WorldCat
National	United States
Artists	MusicBrainz