Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 07	November 09 >

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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagasena Mahathera

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

Prefacing this by saying I cannot search except in English, I can't find any substantive content about this person. This book at least verifies the claim, but that's it, no further detail. Other sources I've found have also been trivial mentions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, Bangladesh, and India. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book does exist but mere existence isn't enough. My search revealed nothing substantial beyond a few trivial mentions so it fails BKCRIT.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Chanel Dsouza, I don't normally like to argue with people who are agreeing with me, but are you sure about your comment? This AfD is for a person, not a book... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After careful review and extensive searches for supporting references, none were found to substantiate the content. Therefore, I am inclined to proceed with the information provided by the nominator, recognizing their contribution to this article. Baqi:) (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jannatulbaqi, err, continuing my trend of arguing with people who are agreeing with me, are you entirely certain about your comment as well? I have to admit I'm concerned to see you say you made "careful review and extensive searches" when two minutes before posting this comment you were declining two AfC drafts and accepting another. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How long could it really take to do a quick Google search? That’s exactly what I did. I simply searched the name on the search engine and found that there wasn't much of significance. In the end, I wrote that I agree with the nominator and will go along with them.

Additionally, a book published in 2015 mentioned: 'Mahathera Nagasena, believed to have been a historical figure, was sent to the kingdoms of Bactria as a Buddhist missionary during Menander's rule. Menander (known as Milinda in Buddhist traditions) was described as arrogant.' Thank you with Warm Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator, in case that wasn't clear. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to point out when people make AfD comments that don't appear to be consistent with the circumstances. In your case, I am sorry, but I found it difficult to believe your initial statement that you made "careful review and extensive searches" given that two minutes prior you had been rapidly assessing AfC submissions. Had your initial comment been more honest about simply doing a "quick Google search", I wouldn't have called it out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people often do the same, and I’ve noticed it too. But if you read the comments I’ve made, even in previous AFD, you’ll see that I am genuinely careful. or I’m glad that you paid close attention to my activity, and I also apologize if any of my statements caused you any hurt. Take care, thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and from search, the subject, a figure in history does exist but no significant coverage can be found to pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - abbots and the equivalent leaders of monasteries are not automatically notable, and if nobody else can find reliable sources, then he is not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did anyone actually bother to look in google books? I'm seeing plenty of sources that have coverage on the man such as. A Social History of India, The Classical Education and the Community of Mahasangha in Sri Lanka, the journal of the World Fellowship of Buddhists], 2500 Years of Buddhism, etc. Granted most of these are only available in snippet view, but I think they indicate notability. Google books also indicates he may have an entry in volume 10 of the Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (2003, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh); but again it isn't viewable.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone actually bother to look in google books? I did, thank you - my nomination links the WFB book.

The real problem is that the absolute dearth of information provided in our article makes it impossible to tell which historical figure is being talked about - Mahathera is a courtesy title, and so there may be multiple people named Nagasena who are referred to as Nagasena Mahathera. 2500 Years of Buddhism is available on Internet Archive, so I was able to read through that. The Nagasena Mahathera mentioned is Nagasena, who compiled the Milinda Panha. I don't see any indication that he was active in Bangladesh; he hung out in Sagala, Pakistan, quite a ways away. Similarly, Social History of India (not on IA) discusses the Nagasena Mahathera who wrote the Milinda Panha; there are no results for Bangladesh in that book. Classical Education has results for Sangharaja, but not for Bangladesh, suggesting again that this is a different person. I don't think any of these sources refer to this Nagasena Mahathera. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sangharajas in some places are the Buddhist equivalent of senior WP:BISHOPS, but even then there is only a presumption that sources exist to support notability. However, sangharajas in other places may not have the same degree of power and influence as, say, the Sangharaja of Thailand. In this case, it appears evident that Nagasena existed but the sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (see examples here and here.) The only Google Books entry cited in the "keep" !vote above that's not a trivial mention seems to be describing a different Nagasena, not the subject of this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There's no rush. But, to explain the relist further for anyone curious: we had one "delete" vote that found some coverage, just not enough, so I take that as a soft !vote. Another one of the delete !votes contains very little information. Only the third delete really communicated both "I am confident this should be deleted" and "I understand the criteria". So I relisted.

Now we've got another clear delete rationale, so I find consensus for deletion. asilvering (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radka Zelníčková

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

Does not meet notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found this article but it doesn't seem to be enough. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She won first W40 now W50 title at the doubles tournament in Pazardzhik Cup. meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is like a club cricket or football team winning a local league. Also there is still the lack of significant coverage issue. Shrug02 (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. SlowPokesB (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found routine match reporting like Teraz and Sportky but this is not enough for WP:GNG. Failing GNG is far more relevant than a weak NTENNIS pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering How much more thorough and clear does it need to be? After a week 4 people say it fails significant coverage and just 1 says "keep" but fails to back that opinion up by adding anything to an article which indeed clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. What is the point of the AFD process? I've had articles with far more citations deleted yet these tennis ones seem like the holy grail that must not be touched no matter how poorly sourced or non-notable they are. Prediction time - "keep due to no consnsus" will be the eventual outcome. Waste of time. Shrug02 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug02, we regularly relist discussions where opinion is divided and this was just a first relisting. It's more important to get this discussion closed right than quickly. What's the hurry? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I gave you my full answer on your talk page. All I will add here is that opinion is not divided. One editor is saying keep to all these tennis AFDs, even going as far as to unilaterally close one as "keep" while all other opinions are for delete. The aforementioned editor has opposed PROD and AFD without actually adding any significant coverage to any of the articles and just aggressively quotes tennis rules, votes multiple times and lists minor tournaments as justification for keep. So in conclusion there is no hurry, I am simply frustrated that one person is being allowed to filibuster the process when if you actually look at the articles in question they clearly fail to meet the required standard. Shrug02 (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Zelnickova won 1 W40 (now a W50) doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (mostly local coverage in Slovakian tournaments). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a predominantly singles sport - and this case (along with others nominated right now) proves it yet again. She might get there in the future, but as of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Allsop

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sporting success and I searched Google News, most of the articles were about a murdered man and not this darts player. starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Agree with above, coverage seems to be about a different person, a murdered man. LibStar (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

M. R. Mathias

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

Poorly sourced. Fails WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Science fiction and fantasy. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found coverage of him in one independent source, a Publishers Weekly article.[1] It looks like all of his books are self-published. I didn't find any other significant coverage of him or his books. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The CNN source used in the article is a RS, and the Publisher's Weekly cited above seems ok; two sources about an author, that's more than what we see in some articles about authors here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN ref is an iReport, user-generated content ("citizen journalism"). Schazjmd (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete (weak delete) I didn't really conduct that much research, though it doesn't seem like he's that notable. not significant coverage by major outlets, review websites. has zero books that are so ubiquit that they show up everywhere, including LibraryHub's bookmarks, kirkus, publishers weekly, end of the year lists. no major literary awards according to isfdb and sfadb. even nominations. best he has is nominations for locus, which isn't good enough to keep unless he wins one. royal not listed as a 2011 nominee for locus award for scifi, fantasy, ya, first, or any category here https://www.sfadb.com/Locus_Awards_2011 Create a template (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(unsigned misplaced comment) I can confirm that all of his novels were self-published. The publishing company is Mathias Publishing. He owns this company as a fictitious business name. The business is not registered in his home state of Oklahoma. I am in favor of deleting the article as it does not meet the requirements for ‘notable’. I apologize if I’m not using proper editor quotes and references. I contributed to this article 8 years ago correcting misinformation and guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biouxtai (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) moved into place by 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book was not nominated, that source was one individual persons votes. Not the nominations list. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Actual voting form that allowed write-in votes. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really feel bad for arguing for a delete since the guy has gone through so much and come out the other side, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. When I looked back around 2020-ish, I couldn't find anything and didn't find anything now either. The CNN source is from iCNN, which allows users to submit articles. If the article gains enough attention CNN might pick it up (in which case it would become usable as a source) but that wasn't the case here. I wasn't certain about the Locus Poll Award, but as Duffbeerforme stated, this seems to be a Locus Award where voters can submit their own write-in candidates. This is different from the other Locus Awards, where the list is chosen from books the publication has reviewed and is far more selective. Now if they'd won the award that would certainly be something to contribute to notability, but that wasn't the case here either.

I really hope that the guy is doing well and continues to do well, because overcoming the stuff he's been through is frankly amazing. It's just unfortunate that he never gained coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable and counting towards notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NAUTHOR. References are predominately to primary sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published author. Almost no visibility (I searched library holdings; copies in bookstores; reviews in standard sources). The Publisher Weekly article is nice, but not sufficient for notability. Lamona (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don’t see how this passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the problems with this page can be fixed. Kolano123 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which problems and how? He's still a self-published author with insufficient reliable sources. Unless you have found some. Have you? Lamona (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Theodore Blix

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

Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up ancestry.com-type websites. The article creator has moved this from draftspace to mainspace. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I laud his service to the final full measure, there are zero secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed draftification, so here we are. WP:ROTM seaman, notable only to those who knew him, but fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, pure WP:BIO1E. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self Taught

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBAND. I can't find any secondary reliable sources covering the band at all (although search engine results may be skewed by the name). Completely unsourced article with an external link to their MySpace. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried a search using only Canadian websites or media, still nothing. I'm not finding enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I deleted two sections that self-asserted copyright infringement. Three other sections I tagged as without sources. I copy edited and stubified it. There’s almost nothing left except a WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it wasn't necessary to tag each section as unsourced when the entire article itself is already tagged as unsourced? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A cursory search did not show up anything useful to establish WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Orion Energy Systems 245

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

The three cited sources are all primary. A search for sources does not reveal anything that would seem to pass GNG, and does not qualify under WP:NSPORTSEVENT since this seems to be the racing equivalent of a regular season match. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: Sufficient sources have been provided to meet GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight sources are actually listed, and a proper redirection target exists as part of IMSA SportsCar Weekend. None of the sources presented violate PRIMARY either. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there were only three sources at the time of nomination which were 1 2 3, all of which are raw data/primary sources. Five sources have since been added, but it doesn't seem to me that any of them represent SIGCOV. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sources have been added since yesterday and are enough to meet GNG I believe. MegaDriver80Wiki (talk ) 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, withdrawing my nomination. Apologies, I think I missed those sources because they refer to the race as Road America rather than Orion Energy Systems 245. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect‎ to Jewish Community Relations Council. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

Delete or redirect to Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) as WP:ATD. One of 100+ local JCRCs, and this one is non-notable without WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NORG. Coverage where it exists, is WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Andre🚐 08:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Mass deletion of pages added by Mrbrand Entrepreneurs". (Ponyo already noted the deletion here but did not close the nomination.) (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Milad

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

Recreation of salted title: Al Hasan Milad, which was salted back in August. No opinion on the sources provided, and the article does appear adequately sourced (at first glance). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe once it was not significant but at this moment it seemed significant to me so I created the page Mrbrand Entrepreneurs (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD G5. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[3][4] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ratnahastin. A lot of WP: CONTENTFORKING is there in article. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK actually.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Television, Technology, Aviation, Internet, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of redundant content fork here. Adani Enterprises is the largest company within the much broader Adani Group. In its own right, Adani Enterprises meets WP:LISTED as it is part of the NIFTY 50 index of the 50 largest Indian companies and has received significant coverage in international media [5], Indian media [6], and analyst reports [7] independent of the parent. This page appears to have passed the WP:AFC review legitimately in 2021. Concerns about paid edits should be addressed by cleaning up the problematic content, instead of deleting pages on otherwise highly notable topics. Yuvaank (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group: as an WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Yuvaank, Clrealy meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Also already survived from previous AfD. Vofavy (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they don't say why do we need an "Adani Enterprises" when we have Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure content fork especially when we already have an article on Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, i can't believe how can someone mark such notable companies for deletion. I mean on what ground? Adani is one of the most notable companies in India, easily passes WP:NCORP. See the notices and warnings on nominator's talk page which has been deleted by the user. B-Factor (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ASPERSIONS. Dympies (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A better and deeper source evaluation is needed on the presented ones. Kindly note that keep !votes should provide proper rationale supported by reliable sources denoting notability and SIGCOV. Additionally, kindly address the need of the article when another similarly titled article already exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to address Dympies's comment above which seems to suggest we discount the sources presented by me on the basis of WP:NEWSORGINDIA: The Financial Times is not even an Indian news organization to begin with and is widely-regarded as one of the highest-quality sources for business-related topics. The Ken is pretty credible too as there is no evidence of paid reporting by them. The HDFC Securities analyst report satisfies WP:LISTED. These sources, along with it being part of NIFTY 50, establish this company's notability independent of the parent group umbrella. It is worth considering WP:SIZE of the Adani Group page before advocating for a merge/redirect. I'm also yet to see any evidence of content fork besides sweeping assertions. Yuvaank (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a reasonable solution to deleting a bad article that is a fork of a company - but is also a real subsidiary. We don’t need articles about every subsidiary of even the largest companies. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One more article on the same topic is unnecessary. Agletarang (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two companies possess distinct prospects. These are dissimilar. Citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and hence fulfill WP:NCORP. I believe that discussing the references could be more advantageous. And agree with Yuvaank. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group. It is not possible to maintain this page without making it look like a content fork of a broader article. CharlesWain (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adani Group and Adani Enterprises are distinctly separate entities, and there is no basis for merging the two. After this extensive discussion and consensus on the Talk page, See Talk:Adani Group and the closure of the initial Articles for Deletion (AfD), the page has remained live. It is concerning that, despite these discussions, there are still proposals to merge the pages. The page meets all necessary policies to justify its independence.Kevarove (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid WP:STONEWALLING and read WP:CCC. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did not find any evidence of content fork. Received independent coverage.Lalu Faizy (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adani Group Adani Enterprises is often synonymous with Adani Group in most media coverage. Also, a closer look at the content shows that the subsidiaries listed on the Adani Enterprises page overlap with those listed as affiliated companies on the Adani Group page, which reduces the value of maintaining two separate pages. Merging them would be the most effective way to retain the key aspects of Adani Enterprises. Charlie (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable company in its own right, with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. While there is overlap with the Adani Group article, there is also unique information here that justifies keeping the article separate.Regemoso (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company appeared in independent studies, financial reports, and business journals. Reports consider it a separate entity and topic, and as a publicly listed company, It meets Wikipedia's notability standards for corporations.Bojawa (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV almost always exists for publicly listed companies, and Adani Enterprises is not an exception. Unlike Alphabet Inc./Google, here the subsidiary is the publicly traded entity, and even so it has coverage that focuses on it distinctly from the parent conglomerate. See coverage (going well beyond WP:ORGTRIV) in the Financial Times here and here, the Wall Street Journal here and here, in Bloomberg here, the New York Times here and here. See also academic papers providing significant coverage of Adani Enterprises distinct from Adani Group here, here, and here. I will add that I find the sources presented earlier in the discussion to contribute to WP:NCORP as well. As for whether this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, there's both sufficient coverage of the publicly listed subsidiary and encyclopedic content in the existing article to qualify for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority–West Bank militias conflict

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

An article that has no connection to reality. There is no conflict as the author of the article wants to describe. In every country there are small groups that challenge the ruling authority. This does not mean that there is a conflict that requires writing an article and publishing it in an encyclopedia. EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's ample sourcing about the resurgence of militias in the West Bank and their conflict with the Palestinian Authority. The article needs work and perhaps a new title, but the topic is clearly notable and a topic discussed in WP:RS. [8] [9] [10] [11][12] [13] [14] Longhornsg (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah this, basically; there's enough sources that describe what is clearly an inter-Palestinian conflict, and not just sporadic, unrelated clashes. As for the title, it's provisional. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Has no connection to reality" is not a valid deletion reason, as long as reliable sources describe it this way.Whizkin (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of blackface minstrel songs#O. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owl Creek Quickstep

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

An obscure 19th century tune --Altenmann >talk 18:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of blackface minstrel songs#O where it is mentioned. Could only find brief mentions of the songs in select books. Unsure of the notability of that list, but it's a valid AtD regardless. Could also be redirected to Dan Emmett, but there's no mention of the song there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of blackface minstrel songs#O — Maile (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection Pictures Studio

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

I have failed to find any independent and secondary coverage of this company, much less anything that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH, just database listings and self-published sources such as social media profiles. I draftified it but it was returned to mainspace, so draftification isn't an option here – besides, I do not think that sources exist at this point.

The only claims to notability made in the article are that the company has worked on notable films and worked together with notable companies – but notability is not inherited. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only founded in 2023 may be too soon. Nothing in google news, fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is too early for this subject, especially without substantial coverages. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vance (tennis)

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

Fails to meet notability or significant coverage criteria. Played 2 ATP Tour matches in doubles and lost both. Highest ranking of 765. Shrug02 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsurprisingly, I can't find any WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Can’t find any substantial coverage in sources, not from a cursory search too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chandler

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

Prod was formerly tried. A career consisting of a cup game, 13 games in the USL First Division and some failed trials is a very weak claim to notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Norway, and Colorado. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No secondary coverage that shows [[WP:SIGCOV}} Demt1298 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Georgia State Senate election. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Ramaswami

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

WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not demonstrating that he would pass the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get Wikipedia articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this shows neither of those things at all, and is basically just a campaign brochure referenced entirely to the run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate everywhere can always show, rather than any evidence that his unsuccessful candidacy will still be of enduring significance into the 2030s or 2040s.
We're writing history here, not news. The notability question isn't "has he been temporarily in the news cycle recently", it's "has he accomplished anything so overwhelmingly significant that people will still be looking for information about him decades from now", and this is completely failing to demonstrate that the answer to that question would be yes. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Georgia State Senate election as an ATD. Fails WP:NPOL. मल्ल (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to 2024 Georgia State Senate election per WP:ATD-R. TJMSmith (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Georgia State Senate election as WP:ATD fails WP:NPOL and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Rodríguez

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, local bar singer, participated in a show but did not even win. [https://www.facebook.com/p/Ani-Rodriguez-Sarmiento-100044291116682/ Is still active according to Facebook, but as an Amy Winehouse impersonator. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Balachandran

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

Movie maker does movie making things. While the movies are notable, this guy doesn't seem to be. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOEARLY. DareshMohan (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have edited and added some of the reliable sources i got. As per my idea, it now passes WP:PRODUCER and WP:HEYYMAN. Monhiroe (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. The subject fails WP:NBIO and as a filmmaker, it is WP:TOOSOON to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Add more content, fix the refs and clean the prose before bringing it back to mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages

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

The topics "Regular sound correspondences between Uralic languages" and "Historical phonology of Hungarian" are both notable. However, this topic does not have notability independent of those topics; Hungarian does not play such a critical role in Uralic reconstruction as to justify the existence of this page. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. Suggest rename and refactor, perhaps indeed as Historical phonology of Hungarian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Tropylium, we don't rename as part of an AFD closure. Are you voting Keep? If this article is Kept, you can discuss retitling the article and changing its focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose that is strictly speaking keep w/ different discussion required afterwards. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Let’s be honest about some facts here: (1) it’s completely unreferenced and nobody is making any effort to find sources, (2) changing the title of this essay is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and (3) it’s most likely original research. It’s time to source this and fix it, or delete it. If you want to fix this, but need more than a few days, Draftify it yourself. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a shame that this article isn't sourced, but a search on G-Books and G-Scholar for "uralic languages hungarian" indicates that sources do exist. For example, g-book, other g-book, and these articles [15], [16]. It is possible that this information could be merged into Hungarian phonology, but that article is already quite long. It also does not this kind of comparison. Lamona (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the title, the content of the article is ultimately about the historical phonology of Hungarian, which is a notable topic. So I think all that is needed on that front is a title change, as proposed by Trɔpʏliʊm. On the other hand, I do share Bearian's concerns about WP:OR, particularly since this is the sort of topic that attracts crackpots and misinformation. What reassures me on that front is that all of the information passes a basic smell test, and I was able to verify a few of the lexical reconstructions, which would be the most likely target for OR. So I don't see any issues here that aren't repairable, or that are likely to pose a problem if it takes a while for them to be repaired. Botterweg (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced original research. --Altenmann >talk 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted A7‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Baldwin

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

Per WP:BLPPROD. Unsourced and WP:BEFORE search shows no WP:SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no indication of notability, no sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 22:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note I've speedy-deleted as a textbook WP:CSD#A7 candidate.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gertoux

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

I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error.
I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process.
Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner.
My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG.
If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Religion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability of the article subject is essentially a coatrack for endorsing the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton preferred by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination).--Jeffro77 Talk 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffro77 I am grateful. I was unable to see the prior article(s) when I reviewed this since I do not have admin goggles. While they might or might not have changed my acceptance they would have meant that I would have made an even more detailed study than I did. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of theological orthophony

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[17] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:

that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications

Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[18] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to: "is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah", this it is not true [19]. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is straying outside the point, the objection is also wrong. The 1 January 1982 issue of The Watchtower referenced above (on page 9) quotes The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (which uses Yahweh), and then alludes to that quoted form again (the only times Yahweh appears in that issue) before suggesting Jehovah as the preferred alternative on that page and then in more detail on page 14. That issue of the magazine uses the form Jehovah 83 times. This also goes to the reliability of the editor cherry-picking sources to push the narrative about the 'correct' pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More irrelevant material on the rejected thesis

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on the doctoral thesis rejected: it is interesting that his doctoral supervisor worked for 3 years and developed the thesis for the defense. The other reporters had also accepted it. At the last moment Gertoux changed his thesis, only to have it rejected? Then his next doctoral supervisor and again the same reporters who already knew the thesis would accept it again for transfer, and then tell him that they could not accept it? Obviously the rejection was not because of its content. Anyone in France knows about the treatment of minority groups. On the other hand, people with no doctorate, no master's degree or even no bachelor's degree have become top academics: Freeman Dyson, Louis Smullin, Walter Russell Mead, Andrew Casson, William Gillan Waddell, Jack Edmonds, John Strugnell, etc. so a rejected dissertation would not be an obstacle to the existence of a WP article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can unfortunately not build upon your personal opinions about the topic, or what you "obviously" find to be true, only on opinions and analysis presented in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, please provide such sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ), etc., and a brief notice of Gertoux in the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States. Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
- Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
- Lee, Won W. (2003-10-09). "Notes on Recent Publications § The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. by Gerard Gertoux". Religious Studies Review. 29 (3): 267–316. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2003.tb00391.x. ISSN 0319-485X. OCLC 909876699.
- Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN 1099-0321.
- Sion, Brigitte (2000-04-07). "Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens, par Gérard Gertoux (1999)". Revue Juive de Genève. LouvreBible: 24.
- "7789 Gertoux, Gérard. Un historique du nom divin : Un nom encens / Gérard Gertoux. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2001, c1999. - 222p. : ill., facsims., 22cm. ISBN 273840616". קרית ספר: רבעון לביבליוגרפיה של בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים. 71 (3–4). Jerusalem: בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים: 705. 2001.

One version of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story is stored in 130 libraries according to Worldcat. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic speculation re an editor's identity

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment - Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs) has been at this for many years, and first started editing in June 2011 after Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) was blocked in March of the same year. ~~It is likely that they are the same person~~.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem argument. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ad hominem at all. Block evasion is a breach of policy.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On examination of the two editing styles, it is more likely that this was a form of collusion rather than one person evading a block.--Jeffro77 Talk 21:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am unfamiliar with studies of the Tetragrammaton, nor biblical studies in general, judging by WP:PROF...

Gertoux does not appear to be or have been a fellow of a major scholarly society with a prestige comparable to the Royal Society, nor has he ever assumed the highest-level office of a scholarly journal or a major institution of research.
In other words, if Gertoux's most notable work, which this article seems to suggest was the proposal of an alternative theory of the ancient vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, has not had a significant impact on related fields of studies or outside of academia, then this article should be deleted & salted per WP:NACADEMIC.
While I have little knowledge on the subject to determine whether the scholarly sources citied are sufficient enough to invoke criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, I would like to note that the wiki pages of at least four cited academics: Pierre Villard, Claude Obsomer, Thomas Römer, Max Reisel, were all created by @Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. Again, I am not arguing that these articles are WP:COATRACKs; they may very well meet WP:GNG independently of Gertoux.

00101984hjw (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draft:Presence of Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint also appears to be a soapy one-sided piece about use of the Tetragrammaton. The page draws significantly on the opinions of Frank E. Shaw. No points for guessing who wrote the article for him.--Jeffro77 Talk 04:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Gertoux has had a remarkable influence for his Tetragramaton studies in the academy, as commented on by many scholars in independent and secondary, or even tertiary sources in an encyclopedia (not if it is necessary to bring an avalanche of citations and comments to his work, but there are some on the discussion page Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing#Scholars' opinions). I have read of only two who have written that they disagree with Gertoux Tetragrammaton's thesis (unfortunately one is self-published and the other person does not deepen his critique). In this sense Wikipedia:GNG is fulfilled. Gertoux does not object that only Yehowah is the ancient pronunciation, but rather that it was one of those used in the first century CE, among which there was probably also Yahweh and Yaho. Most scholars would not abandon the Yahweh form for Gertoux's argument, but agree that his study offers vision for research, and this has resulted in it being selected among reference works such as the encyclopedias mentioned above. D. N. Freedman said that Gertoux "probably solved the puzzle". Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: Gertoux "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a problem in their academic discipline".

As for the argument that the sources are not good, I advocate for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". In any case, the alleged problem of the sources could perhaps be solved by reworking, or cutting the main text.

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: It is satisfied 1 for being recognized for his studies on the Tetragrammaton, it is satisfied 2 for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", i.e. arguing that Yehowah was used in the 1st century, it is probably satisfied 3, for having 5 reviews (2 in French and 3 in English) of the same book, only in different language.

Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics: Gertoux is cited in Scopus, although he has no ID of his own, and his books are in 130 libraries according to WorldCat. In the list of commentators of Gertoux there are FBA, MBE, Legion of Honour, Ordre national du Mérite, Ordre des Palmes académiques, Israel Prize, etc., and many other awards.

Although the sources claiming that Gertoux is a victim of discrimination are the human rights institutions (secondary sources and not Gertoux himself), I do not know if it applies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, medicine, physics, etc., because the density of publication in the field is so much lower, and there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the coatrack: on the discussion page of the Gertoux article, reasons were expressed as to why it was presumed to be a Coatrack. However, since the deletion nomination, the editors have worked hard on the article and it has undergone drastic changes to address the alleged problem. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a coatrack. A great deal of the original fluff and clutter and other extraneous material has been torn down, it is true. That does not remove the rationale for the nomination. There is a point where answering every point in a discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEON. You have been told about this on your talk page by me, and by an uninvolved editor, albeit that they told you after you had made this additional comment. The is a request, here, to cease and desist, while recognising that you will plough your own furrow. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest approach to a notability claim made in all the above is that one book was recognized. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. (And the claim is not even very solid. The Religious Studies Review, for example, is a superficial notice.) No other relevant standard (WP:PROF or WP:GNG) is met either. Given the article's history, salt it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Timtrent, I initially also though that this can be salvaged as a short-ish biography on the grounds of WP:BASIC at least, but no. Not enough secondary coverage for a sensible encyclopedic biography.—Alalch E. 17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per XOR'easter. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, which did participate in an local election, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's true

I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj: While TVK has gained attention due to its high-profile celebrity leader, actor Vijay, and its recent political conference, the article may still fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Most coverage thus far has focused on the party's formation and media events, rather than deep, independent analysis of its policies or political influence. While membership numbers and media attention are notable, the political impact of TVK will only become clearer once it participates in elections. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base

But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of its electoral success are speculative, the party’s actual impact will only be clear once it participates in elections. Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success. While the party's future potential is acknowledged, it does not yet meet the criteria for notability based on current available information. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now): I am not casting a strong delete vote, but I do support drafting the article, as it falls under WP:TOOSOON. Given its growing popularity and potential significance within the Indian political landscape, I believe there is a strong likelihood that the article will meet the GNG in the near future. Let me list out my point of view on the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party has not yet participated in any elections. This means that its impact on the political landscape is still to be fully realized. The article mainly cites initial news reports about the party’s formation and its ideological stance, with most coverage focusing on the widely acclaimed and highly honoured actor's background as a celebrity and the announcement of his intentions for political reform. While the article includes substantial media coverage, most of the references appear to be centred around the announcement and some early speeches, rather than detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, including substantial analysis or reporting. At this stage, the coverage of article is mainly superficial, reflecting media interest but lacking deep journalistic inquiry into its policies or broader political influence. For that reason, the article fall short in meeting the WP:GNG.
Finally, while the party’s registration with the Election Commission is underway, its full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene will not be apparent until it participates in the upcoming elections (like the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections). Until then, it remains an emerging entity without substantial political achievements.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about "participating in any elections, impact on the political landscape, detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities, party’s registration with the Election Commission, full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene and substantial political achievements" are not policy based or required criteria under GNG. GNG sources are not evaluated based on personal preferences. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that you consider the points I raised as "personal preferences" rather than recognizing them as general principles that apply to all establishments seeking to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The points I discussed are entirely focused on aligning with the guidelines outlined in GNG, and are not based on subjective preferences. They are intended to reflect the standard requirements for notability, which are consistent across all articles under said category. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are consistent across all articles under said category? From a glance, I can see that many parties listed in Category:Political parties established in 2023 and Category:Political parties established in 2024 have only announced their participation or have only recently created their parties. It still looks more like a personal preference than a general principle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by my comments. Are you confident that all the articles in the categories you mentioned fully comply with the guidelines? Have you reviewed any of them? or were discussions held to retain the articles and considered eligible for inclusion? and I notice that very few of these articles actually have reliable sources to support their notability. I encourage you to present counterarguments specifically addressing GNG, rather than listing other articles that may or may not have passed the notability guidelines. About the party in question, it is important to assess whether it truly meets the criteria for inclusion based on its current status and available coverage. Let's focus on the application of the guidelines, rather than on other cases that may not be directly relevant. And If you believe the article meets the GNG criteria, please provide a detailed explanation of how it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other cases are not relevant here, why did you reply above with "Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success."? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some users argue that this article should remain because it was founded by a well-known actor in India and claim the party has a strong chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections and potentially forming a state government, on the basis of only "popularity". However, this is purely speculative and falls under WP:FUTURE and that is why I referenced the political involvement of two similarly popular actors, to highlight that fame alone does not guarantee political success or notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This party received extensive media coverage because a well-known actor founded it. However, a thorough analysis is needed to determine if it meets WP:GNG. Notably, this party is not even a registered entity, as MimsMENTOR explains well.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC) (you can't vote twice and your deletion nomination is your vote to Delete Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Owais Al Qarni, you do realize that you are the nominator, right? Please strike your vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to have sufficient content that would justify a separate article, the text about the ideology of the party can be merged into the actor's article. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDB since most of the arguments in favour of keeping the article can be seen as a indiscrimnate collection of information/news regarding the announcements and proceedings of the party. Xoocit (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG as it has substantial, reliable and independent coverage that highlights Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s formation, leadership and significant public interest. There is also indepth reporting from its formation to the present, beyond routine announcements. There is no specific requirement for a political party to participate in an election to be notable under Wikipedia standards and currently, there are around 12 reliable, independent sources providing indepth coverage across various points in time, not limited to a single event, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and the WP:SIRS check. WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTDB do not apply here, as the sources provide substantial analysis and detailed coverage of the subject, and the impact on culture/society is evident, with almost all sources being full length articles discussing and analyzing TVK. Moreover, we have around 35 English language sources and several native language sources that have not yet been added to the article. Given that the subject has a median of ~5,000 page views, which I believe likely places it higher than 90% of Wikipedia articles, deletion does not seem appropriate at this time. While deletion might have been plausible if the subject was discussed in February 2024, it is no longer relevant now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. given sources found by participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cringe

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV on the band itself, only the band lead's relationship with Rachael Ray. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is a short staff wriiten AllMusic bio here, and staff written album reviews here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and my own search for more coverage. Melodic (magazine) has an even longer bio and a review. Here we have a review in Impose (magazine). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer review [20] is blocked in Europe, lol. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune also had a review [21], too short to count for notability. Some other reviews are found here, here and here and [22] and here, but I'm not familiar with the outlets (or the genre), but see that some of them are used in other articles. Geschichte (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I agree that moving the article and name to Chato Chico is appropriate. A report on disaster preparedness said in its introduction, [translated] "The Cura Mori District was created by Law No. 15434 of February 19, 1965, initially consisting of the towns of Cucungará as capital, Pozo de los Ramos, Chato Grande, Chato Chico, Pueblo Nuevo, Buenos Aires, Santa Rosa, Fundo Casaraná, Vega Monteverde, La Para and the town of Chato." Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2020-2022 (PDF). July 2020.. Law No. 15434 sets out the borders, and says in part, [translated] "follow this boundary line to the summit of Loma Blanca and continue until you find the Tabanco road, extending to the Piura River bed, following its course, upstream, it reaches the point of the royal road that borders the town of Chato, continuing to the outer part of the urban area;".

I am not sure why the NGA cross-identified Chato with Chato Chico, but sources now talk about Nuevo Chato Chico in reports like Municipalidad Distrital de Cura Mori. Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2019-2021 (PDF)..

As an aside, the hamlet (case or caserio) of Chato Grande is now quite separate as it was incorporated in 2013 into a new municipality called "Almirante Grau" along with the population centers of the hamlets of Nuevo Paraíso, Ciudad Noé and Nuevo San Pedro. This nugget of information is found in the first report cited above.

It is possible that the town of Chato (pueblo de Chato) of 1965 is the Nuevo Chato Chico of the 2020s. I found nothing explicit saying so. But the town clearly exists both visually and in documentation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Unplugged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in Google news or books which is very unusual for an American organization. The 2 sources are from 2008 and it is not known if it got any coverage ever since. The San Francisco Chronicle source is local as per WP:AUD.LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and California. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I conducted a deep search for sources, but nothing was found discussing the subject. What came close with several mention is a similar name of No Child Left Behind Act- an act of the US congress. This article as it is fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another great idea, but not covered by significant public sources. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Paparusso

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, being the manager of a non-notable influencer isn't notable... The influencer doesn't seem to have an article here. [23] is a PR item, a non-RS. The rest of the article reads as a CV of a production company person, which seems PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable for an article. Of all footnotes in the article just two discussed the subject in WP:SIGCOV and I am not sure of the reliability of those two sources. His notably heavily relies on his management of a social media influencer with purported over 160 million followers on TikTok and being 5th most followed on Instagram. This manager fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Music, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Mongolia. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarians FC

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mongolia. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Mongolia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Bajaj

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

Notability is dubious. Fails WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ACTOR. B-Factor (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conducted searche for sources but nothing was found to indicate anything close to notability. The three footnotes in the article are nothing. They are not reliable and they lack WP:SIGCOV of the actor. This actor fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "The article contains only three references, with the Hindustan Times source being the most reliable. However, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's genral notability guidelines (WP:GNG) or the (WP:ENT) criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in the 3 sources on the page about the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although a redirect to a film he casted, to Wedding Pullav is an alternative. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena

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

The only notability this new political party has is that it seeks to present an imprisoned gangster, Lawrence Bishnoi, as a political candidate. This is very recent news. All of the sources are either about that or about Bishnoi himself. None has any significant coverage of either the party or of Shukla, the founder of the party. Although not relevant to the notability of the party, I'm very curious as to why the party would sponsor a convicted murderer as a candidate for the Indian Assembly election. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. We’re not a directory of, nor a newsletter about every minor new party or ideological faction. The sources are suspect, as typical lately. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources that discuss the party's contacting Lawrence Bishnoi all say essentially the same thing, and are almost certainly based on the same press release – and even if they were written independently, they still don't represent anything approaching significant coverage of the org. There is also a recently-added source about a banner campaign by the party (added as two sources in the article, but actually just one, 1, 2) but that is entirely based on statements from the party, so not independent and not secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am generally lenient with political parties, but no, a political party should have members in the legislature before they can be considered notable. WP:GNG is not met either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jizzakh. Star Mississippi 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timur's Gates

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

WP:PROD reverted. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (which the two in the article currently are not). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Uzbekistan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jizzakh. There's a paragraph about the gates in one travel guide and, apart from the websites cited in the article, that's about it. There's not enough coverage; I'm fine with outright deletion too. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say it again: Let's not delete it. I personally went thru those Gates (as my photos in that article show), and felt it important. I am embarrased to see some Wikipedians against such an important asset of Uzbekistan and of the world. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jizzakh: As possible WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Mosh Fest

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Wisconsin. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found was this one single page from a book dropping its name once without SIGCOV. [24] Other than that, nothing to be found. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing I can find in Gnews or Gnewspapers. The one source in the comment above is fine, but that seems to be all there is. Primary sourcing is now used in the article... Defunct event that doesn't seem to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. Conducted search but nothing was found mentioning or discussing the subject failing WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cordyceps. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxylum

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

The only source that is cited states that the current name is Cordyceps. IRMNMG concurs that Hypoxylon is a synonym of Cordyceps.[25] William Avery (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, this is just a synonym of Cordyceps, barring confusion with Hypoxylon which is a valid and quite different genus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cordyceps: Common action for synonyms is to direct the to the preferred term. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we do for valid synonyms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Water Films and Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV. A company, corporation or organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources I could find just list an address and an email address. Couldn't find any films they have ever made. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has been unsourced since its creation. A few IPs have blanked the content in the past claiming that "the company doesn't exist or has shut down". It was surprising that my search yielded no reliable sources. The few I found were all company profiles, but these primary sources are not helpful in establishing notability.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a city directory entry and whatever films they did produce were just non-notable shorts. Nothing here or there. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing from a cursory search to establish WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Cultures

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

I'm failing to find anything about this film in Reliable Sources and don't think It meets WP:NFILM. Of course this may just be a product of the generic name and it being an Iranian film, but the lack of inclusion in normally permissive databases (IMDB, etc.) or on fa.wiki, doesn't fill me with confidence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Islam. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iran. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there - even IMDb doesn't have this listed. There are roughly two or three possibilities for this. The first is that the film was released prior to the Internet being as widely available and archived, so any sources for this were either not put on the internet or are no longer easily found. The second is that the film was never released to the English speaking market and as such, any sources are in another language. If it was released when the internet wasn't as robust as it is now, then the mix of other language and late 90s, early 2000s internet issues would definitely keep sources from being found - Google doesn't always crawl those like it would an English language source. The third and also likely is that the film just isn't notable. As the nominator stated, the film isn't mentioned on the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, so that is somewhat a nod in that direction. We'd really need someone fluent in Farsi to take a look and verify that there aren't any sources for this. I used Google Translate to give me a Farsi translation of the title (assuming that it was the same title in Farsi) and there aren't a ton of sources that came up. I'll see if I can find someone willing to do a search, just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the listed Researcher/Script writer/Director/editor turns up a personal website on which he lists the series as running from 1994-1997, which may account for the lack of online sources as you say. He also seems to have adapted it into a book listed as being in English, but I can't figure out if it was also put out in Farsi. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The good news about not being able to find sources from the early 1990s is that a lot of stupid things Generation X did in our youth are not discoverable. The bad news is that a big chunk of history between the demise of small bookstores and the growth of Internet 2.0 is missing. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [26][27][28]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[29]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[30]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism in Australia

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

The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.

Not a single claim in the article, except for that in the last sentence, is an encyclopaedic proposition. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this source indicates in the first line of its abstract that "Settler colonialism continues in Australia today." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic—of how settler colonialism applies to Australia, which is the application of a disputable academic theory, distinct from straight history—is substantially covered in reliable sources cited already in the article. I don't find the deletion rationale to square with our policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep..... .massive amount of academic publications on this topic....article needs expansion not deletion.Moxy🍁 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the 2 comments above, but it does need some work. Bduke (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: May need work but is notable with a load of sources on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "Needs work" is quite an understatement but we have a few sources to help us get started. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The article being in a poor state does not mean it should be deleted. Google scholar and JSTOR searches indicate there is sufficient sourcing on this topic to warrant an article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fully fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. During a WP:BEFORE, no significant coverage was found. And why would there be, when he only played one cup game for Notts County as well as brief spells in obscure locales. Kept before (twice) due to a guideline that was scrapped and no longer exists. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nomation. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, no secondary coverage that shows WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can’t find the substantial coverage to establish WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinapia

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

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a related article for one of the singers, Eunwoo, has been proposed for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they did chart on a recognised billboard chart, the World Digital Song Sales chart at a peak of 18. They also have reliable sources coverage such as Naver already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for charts at WP:MUSIC is: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." World Digital Song Sales isn't a national music chart and isn't listed as an acceptable chart at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.
As far as the Naver articles you mentioned, of the three in the article, this and this are just regurgitations of the press releases from their agency and don't meet the definition of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" as described in WP:BAND. RachelTensions (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states "Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart." so in these circumstances it is an acceptable chart. The better Naver ref is here, and there is significant coverage in this Billboard article here, more coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the argument that the World Digital Song Sales chart is not a qualifying chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. It's a single digital release from a band with no SIGCOV and an arguably ONEEVENT lifetime! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a qualifying chart. As per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS it's a genre-specific chart allowed in certain circumstances as explained earlier. The World Digital Song Sales wikipedia page states "Established in 2010—its first issue was dated January 23 - as one of 21 genre-specific song charts launched by Billboard that year", imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true the lack of WP:SIGCOV and little to no "reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials" overrides anything chart-related. RachelTensions (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard piece is bylined and independent Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One article does not constitute significant coverage. RachelTensions (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Usage share of web browsers#Differences in measurement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Net Applications

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

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing OP meant per NCORP. I agree with that, but there is enough due weight coverage for the company's browser usage data to merge the criticism section into Usage share of web browsers#Differences in measurement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested in the prior comment seems fine. I'm ok with a brief mention there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ardennes

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing why this is considered notable to meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not really convinced a RD is necessary but as an ATD it could be redirected to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as current references are WP:PRSOURCEs either from the US or Iraq governments and "cannot be used towards claims of notability". Beyond that, there's literally nothing about this 2007 battle in my search - and considering the lack of independent sources I don't consider it a candidate for a merge or redirect regarding the Iraq War (it should be removed from the table in target article mentioned by nom). It does however share a name with Battle of the Bulge (in WW2) as that was called the "Ardennes Offensive", and there was also a Battle of the Ardennes (in WW1) but can't find any sources calling these "Operation Ardennes" so not a redirect candidate for these either. Molecular Pilot 09:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Conner

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

Autobiography of a journalist, reads like a CV. The sources are all about articles he has written, but there are no articles about him. None of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria apply and neither WP:ANYBIO. The writer's own works are not independent so no WP:GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Washington, D.C.. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first thing its creator did on WP was this page. Per nom, CV-like, lacks WP:GNG SIGCOV. A journalist journalisting is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article reads like a resume, which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, as it is not a platform for personal resumes. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Baqi:) (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. We are not your resume service, we are not a free web server, we are not a place for original research, we are not a place for content creation, and we are not primarily a social media service. In 2007, a lot of folks slipped through and later became notable. In 2024, everyone knows what we are not. Salt as a way to reduce future abuse of a charity. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional likley autobio of a non-notable journalist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2028 United States presidential election. I'm choosing not to Draft this page because, frankly, there will be little new information coming over the next 6 months and it is likely to just be deleted. As a Redirect, the content is there and as we get closer to 2028, we can return this to an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a topic worth having a Wikipedia article over. The fact that it is being speculated in the media just shows the need for such an article. 45.177.176.17 (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @ElijahPepe: what would be the benefit of draftifying over redirecting? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining the information that is there and establishing a page structure ahead of time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's moot and not a tangible benefit, because if a redirect occurs, the information and page structure can easily be retrieved anytime by accessing older versions in the page history. Left guide (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just mentioning because it has been proposed as a Redirect target article but 2028 United States presidential election is also involved in an AFD deletion discussion right now. Is there an alternate target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2028 Republican National Convention may be a plausible alternate redirect target. Left guide (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, at least for now. Once the primaries arrive, then a separate page could be created.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election per others, seems like a fine target. Conyo14 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the above. Renerpho (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify & redirect to 2028 United States presidential election.

WorldMappings (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2028 United States presidential election. I'm choosing not to Draft this page because, frankly, there will be little new information coming over the next 6 months and it is likely to just be deleted. As a Redirect, the content is there and as we get closer to 2028, we can return this to an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn’t warrant deletion, only removal of unnecessary, speculative or otherwise unsourced information. It’ll likely be a very short period of time before relevant information is available. For example, electoral college seats, candidates expressing interests (or those ruling themselves out), primary timelines. It would be futile to delete only to have to be recreated after only a short period of time. 148.252.147.58 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Keep. InterDoesWiki (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both users above. Keep this article. 24.208.3.72 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the page should remain with more detail added as it comes, the list of speculative candidates should be deleted. Gabriel3129 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to delete this right away.

1, There is already a lot of debate on who going to be the next nominee

2, Some candidates have been talked about like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 50.91.26.176 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just mentioning because it has been proposed as a Redirect target article but 2028 United States presidential election is also involved in an AFD deletion discussion right now. Is there an alternate target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election. Again, the page could be recreated once the primaries arrive.TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as suggested. We've not met WP:CRYSTALBALL here until there are candidates who have officially put their hat into the race. As for the target being in a deletion discussion, we probably do not need to worry about that considering the way things are going there. Though 2028 Democratic National Convention might be a fine target too. Conyo14 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For now its content could easily be merged into 2028 United States presidential election, and redirect to the Democratic Party section until the primaries come closer. It's likely that it will only begin at full speed around January 2027. Gust Justice (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that we should both draftify and redirect the pages for both the 2028 Democratic and Republican primaries, like how there is both a draft of Barron Trump, and a redirect to the Trump Family page. WorldMappings (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this user. Draftily and redirect. Wacksonjilliams (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think deleting it is a bad idea but as much as I won't mind a redirect, drafting this page means we can still keep the page and make it ready once things come into full swing with the primaries. 20chances (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica)

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much found suggesting notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Jamaica. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources online and added them to the article when I saw this AfD, and have been waiting to see what other editors' views were. The school has existed for 99 years and evidently educates girls from some influential families, with at least one notable former student, Staceyann Chin. Safiya Sinclair, who didn't attend the school, mentions it in her memoir: "all the brightest girls either went to Montego Bay High School or Mount Alvernia High School". Because of these factors, I'd be surprised if there were not references in offline sources, memoirs, local history, that we are just not finding online. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - What we need are sources about the school from which an article can be written, and those remain hard to find, but per Tacyarg, there seems to be a prima facie case for a presumption of notability here. For instance, various reliable sources, referring to former students, call this school "prestigious". E.g. [31], [32]. This accords with Tacyarg's searches too regarding thw words of Safiya Sinclair. There are research case studies based in the school such as [33]. It was formerly St. James Academy, under which name it is a little tricky to search (many false hits), but clearly was established in 1925. Unfortunate that we only have primary sources [34] from which the article can be written, yet it looks notable. There is a danger that if we synthesise primary sources we end up with original research, a secondary history article and not a tertiary encyclopaedic one. I'd consider a redirect but I don't think anything is appropriate. So I think we keep it and proceed with caution. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a further review of content added by Tacyarg. But, of course, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at 99 years old, notability can indeed be presumed and there is that hint of notability from the sources found by Tacyarg. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mortification (band). If there is a consensus, then it appears to be this Redirect. If policy changes (as linked to), then this decision can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) The person doesn't pass the threshold for having their own article and despite having considered acceptable red ir or mrge target, there's not quite a right one. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm open to redirect to Mortification (band) if there isn't a consensus to straight up delete, but I request it be DELETE and redirect so it doesn't get re-spawned into an article of its own single handedly by an editor down the road. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Provisional) Keep vote~~, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular. You're saying that they're independently notable because of the bands that they're in and thus should have their own article, and so, because they should have their own article, they're notable apart from those bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (~~which he was a member of longer than Mortification~~) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a verified passing of notability. SNG doesn't over-ride GNG expect for some VERY special cases such as with academic textbooks. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). This is an extremely common outcome as an alternative to deleting where, as in this case, the person’s sources are terrible, but they did tour internationally in a band. His solo band projects might also have the same fate. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would his solo project be redirected? I can get pages of results discussing Horde, including in multiple books. And that's the only solo project of his. I'd argue that it's equally a possible redirect target as Mortification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there's only a singular source, and at that an interview, about Sherlock himself. Plenty of coverage for his bands, including Horde. To my regret, then, I'm going to go with delete here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band) as an ATD. As per the discussion above, this is really not very easy. Horde_(band) would be an alternative target for redirection and I'd argue a better one except for the current votes for Mortification, which at least ensures a solid result from this very fluid AfD more likely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this discussion about NBAND, I suggest that a decision be pending the result of that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a longer term target. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is not about a band. The discussion is about an individual. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG is for both bands and members of bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortification. Per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG. Although he has been a member of notable bands, WP:INHERENTWEB comes into play. I think this is the best alternative to deleting the article altogether.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Federal Police killed in the line of duty

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also no sources. Absolutiva (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, Police, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL as it also lacks any sources. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST. Only 1 notable entry. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Avdonin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avdyunin

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

Very few people have this surname. As far as I can tell, there should be no expectation of every surname having its own article. Additionally, there is only one person listed in this article, and they themselves are not even notable enough for their own article, so why should their surname have an article? Harperawl (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avdonin. Quite clear as an ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it should be changed to a redirect instead. Will do! (Once discussion is closed, I guess.) Harperawl (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avdonin. Valid WP:ATD. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Old AFD is not for this person, it was for someone church-related. Geschichte (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, diplomatic roles held do not confer notability, coverage singularly lacking - there's more coverage out there, especially in Indian/Chennai media but it's all routine 'consul general says thing about trade'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Deletion is warranted as the subject does not meet WP:GNG Diplomatic roles alone do not establish notability. Baqi:) (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, consuls like this one even less so. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial that meets the GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject has a lack of WP:SIGCOV and as such fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Tokiwa

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

When one season in Singapore is all this player has done, notability is very questionable. Sources are lacking significant in-depth information about the player as well as independence (all Gekisaka sources in tha ja:wiki version are routine), and I don't think one piece in Town News is enough to make an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions. Sant Baba Bhag Singh University lacks significant academic achievements, industry recognition, or research contributions to justify a dedicated article. The content is overly promotional, with honorific language suggesting it may have been authored by an individual affiliated with the university. Furthermore, the cited sources are either critical of the university’s legitimacy or do not contribute to establishing its notability. Previous attempts to address these issues through WP:PROD were removed without resolution. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. GrabUp - Talk 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The University lacks SIGCOV sources, which fails it to meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Also, no appropriate redirect target found so no WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 03:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Could you please specify any guideline that states being a ‘fully accredited, degree-issuing university recognized by the University Grants Commission (India)’ makes a university notable? I don’t see any. WP:NSCHOOL clearly states that it requires WP:SIGCOV coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources—to meet notability criteria, and the sources you provided are not significant at all. GrabUp - Talk 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Recognition by UGC India do not make them notable. as mentioned by @GrabUp this university fails to meet much of the guidelines/criteria of Wikipedia. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that source you add must be reliable and should not be paid. Small News Reporting services usually are paid. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need to improve UzbukUdash (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: Why are you low-effort voting on multiple AfDs without providing guideline-specific arguments? How do you think this article meets notability? Please clarify. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC provided doc that confirmed the official prove that this institution exists from 2017, can check 0902037_SANT-BABA-BHAG-ANNEX2.pdf pass Notability. the text in the body is not efficient in my opinion need to elaborate thats why I'm focusing on IMPROVE. thanks UzbukUdash (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: First, read WP:NSCHOOL. Institutes are not inherently notable just because they exists; it needs to have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet notability. GrabUp - Talk 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash Looks like you are not familiar with the concept of Notability being discussed here. Please see Wikipedia:Notability & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actual coverage of this university beyond the simple fact that the university exists is quite sparse. This may have passed muster before 2017, but certainly not now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Tone is not the issue at hand (altogether now: deletion is not cleanup) but notability most certainly is. On the issue of degree awarding institutions, WP:schooloutcomes tells us that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable" but also tells us that Schooloutcomes should be AVOIDED in deletion discussions. The standards are WP:N and WP:ORG - and this institution fails both. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ This institution is not notable. and its page should be deleted.VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit"(you can't vote twice and your deletion nomination is your vote to Delete) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage is limited and event-focused, and the sources do not offer the depth or independence needed to establish its notability in the broader educational or academic context. Fails WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic India.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW/withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon McMahon

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

McMahon is a former high school government teacher. McMahon lacks independent in-depth coverage and fails to satisfy notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Law, Politics, Internet, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's wrong with e.g. the Time source already in the article? I also found more reviews/coverage of her book, which the nominator neglected to mention [35][36][37] Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bewildered by this nomination, TBH. There is clearly ample coverage presented in the article to pass WP:GNG. I mean, TIME, good grief! WP:BEFORE really not required... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is clearly passes WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate high-quality sources in the article to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that I was mistaken. Sorry. Firecat93 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Teh-li

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

Recipient of a scouting award. Appears to fail WP:GNG. I was unable to find any other sources in a Google news search. Perhaps there are some Chinese-language sources available. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scouting, and China. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award as they don't meet WP:BIO but are listed their and the fact they received one is supported by an RS. That source is, however, WP:PRIMARY from the offical scouts website and per BIO can't count towards notability, while also not meeting WP:SIGCOV cause it's literally a list with no elaboration - it says his name + the year (btw it's dead now, check internet archive from 2022). Additionally, thee's nothing else relating to him found in English searches. I conducted Chinese searches on both Baidu (mainland China search engine because it says "Scouts of China") - which returned a Baidu Baike article (Chinese Wikipedia but run by Baidu) - it's UGI and a stub with only a single non-WP:SIGCOV WP:PRIMARY ref. There's also people who happened to have the same name, like a victim of a Korean homicide. On Google (but in Chinese, because it says "This Taiwan-related article..." at the bottom), there's only the same Baidu Baike hit, DouYin Baike (basically the same as Baidu Baike - all UGI), as well as non-WP:SIGCOV things like his name (without elaboration) in a list of past principles of a high school, and his name in a list (without elaboration) of past government officials. He also appears to have written a book, but he is no-where near meeting WP:NAUTHOR for that book. Molecular Pilot 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award: This information is already contained in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award Demt1298 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Genital piercing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genital jewellery

AfDs for this article:

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

This article already exists, with more elaboration, sources, and history, under Genital piercing. Non-piercing items (such as clamps and cockrings) are tools moreso than jewellery, and are not covered here in any detail. Types of items used in piercing, such as barbells and rings, are found under Body piercing jewellery and covered somewhat in Body piercing. These items are also not specific to genital piercing. Buttplugs have their own article (and are a toy moreso than an item of jewellery) and nipples are not genitals (and have their own article, under Nipple piercing). This article, at most, works as a wiktionary entry, or as a subheading under the genital piercing article if anything exists that fits better under the jewellery label than the sex toy or tool label without being a piercing (which, as it stands, does not). Its pageviews are significantly lower than Genital piercing, and the title would work better as a redirect if it were kept. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sexuality and gender. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genital piercing: Info in article can be integrated in Genital piercing if not already included Demt1298 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genital piercing per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

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

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and the set seems notable anyway; the informations are not ’loosely" associated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. W/rt/ your statement that I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. It is inarguable that the Eurovision selection process has been given substantial attention by RS, and that therefore that this list meets WP:NLIST. Addressing arguments point by point:
1. LISTCRIT: How is this list not specific enough for that to be a problem?
2. NOTDIR: Again, this list is very specific, so no issue with "loosely associated topics"
3. GNG: Relevant criterion is NLIST, which is met as per above (and arguably irrelevant anyhow per Mushy Yank)
4. OR: I fail to see how this list has any problems with that, rather than WP:verifiability, to which I point to WP:NOTCLEANUP
5. I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. The high-level main Eurovision contest article would be far too unwieldy with all this information.
Mach61 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think my counterarguments to the nom statement are correct, but participants below make good points, so I rescind my keep vote. Mach61 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~the table only~~. While selections are an important part of the Eurovision realm, this table/list format is not appropriate to convey that. The prose describing how entries are selected is all that is needed and in fact should be expanded as how entries were selected tends to be a point of discussion for the contest. I don't understand the point of the table. It is not user friendly, not accessible, and just serves as a dumping ground for unsourced information. Modern contests could have readily accessible refs, but the older ones are not as prevalent or accessible. That on its face is not the biggest issue, but rather every process is different depending on country, so grouping things by labels as just "national final" or "internal selection" is far too vague. Adding additional context would further create readability issues. Some select just a singer internally, some a song internally, some both the singer and the song internally; meanwhile some national finals have an open call for applicants, others have contestants that are internally selected, and yet still others have one singer they've selected singing singer multiple songs for consideration. If I want to see how a country selects their entry, I can navigate to their country's article (i.e. San Marino, Romania, etc.). There are far too many variables to present this information at this manufactured high level. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 Votes to the effect of "Keep under the condition that..." shouldn't be cast, since discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page, not here. Mach61 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. If it's on the fence, I think the evidence presented leans more towards delete. There should be a place that discusses how entries are selected, but currently this article is not that in any meaningful way. The contest's website only discusses this with fewer than a dozen sentences, something which as of now could fully be part of the Eurovision Song Contest article without undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 I think you misunderstand the page. It is not a regular article about the selection process that happens to contain a large list, it is a list-class page of all the broadcasters each Eurovision participant uses for their national finals, that just so happens to have some explication of the process for context. I agree that the non-list conent could be merged into the main article easily enough, but the list is the entire point of the page. You ought to be voting "Delete" Mach61 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I !voted delete overall. The list is the worst part of this article for the reasons I listed above. This type of information is not properly conveyed in list form as it varies so much from country to country. Between the columns being misleading (there are more than just "national final" and "internal selection") and there being no way to compare country vs country via sort or quantity of any well-defined metric, I'm not sure what we're doing here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sims2aholic8 Four of the six columns on the table (Country, debut and latest entry, broadcaster) show what ought to be pretty uncontreversial information, which means any country-to-country variance must be in cases where a year a competing country participated, they did not run either a clear internal selection or national final. May you give a specific example of that happening? To this non-Eurovision fan's eyes, all years seem to be neatly accounted for. Mach61 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61: The four columns you listed are indeed uncontroversial, and are already listed in several other articles, e.g. Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and History of the Eurovision Song Contest. The issue I find with the table for these two columns is that there is a lot of information which is unverified, and in some cases is usually based solely on rumour or fan sites, which causes an issue for WP:OR and WP:UGC. I also believe, as Grk1011 points out above, that it's somewhat reductive to say simply that a country chooses an entry either through a national final or an internal selection. There are multiple cases where hybrid approaches have been used, most often where an artist is chosen and the song is selected, like Greece 2017, but occasionally the opposite can be true, where a composer is signed on and writes a song and then an artist is selected, like the Netherlands 2010. There have also been many times where talent show formats have been used to find an artist, and then the song is selected internally, like Israel's HaKokhav HaBa. There is also the question around whether a televised national selection is open to any entries, and any interested artists or songwriters can submit a song, or whether the national broadcaster restricts the entries to only certain artists, or artists attached to certain labels, e.g. Greece 2014. Countries have also initially decided to go for one method and then decided later on to change this, e.g. Germany 2016, where an internally selected artist was dropped due to public backlash, and a national final was then held, or Greece 2004, when a talent show to select an artist was held, and the planned final to select a song was abandoned when the broadcaster decided to select a different artist.

The point I'm trying to raise is that the current structure of this article does not allow for sufficient context to be conveyed about the exact method of selection used in each country in a given year. Absolutely I believe that information on Eurovision national selections has a place within Wikipedia, as there's no doubt with me that the process is considered notable. This is why individual country articles exist, to explain in better context how the selection processes worked in those years. However I question whether a separate article on this is required and whether relevant prose can be added to the main Eurovision Song Contest article instead, but if it's decided to retain the article without the table that would be a sufficient compromise. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my !vote to outright 'delete' given EurovisionLibrarian's views below. They're correct that say the table is gone, the remaining prose can be trimmed down quite a bit, resulting in an appropriate amount of material to be added/expanded at Eurovision Song Contest. Grk1011 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the table is the main problem and its use for readers is more than doubtful. It also doubles information already present in other country articles and therefore can quickly be outdated or contradict other articles if someone forgets to update it regularly (at the moment, the information on France 1956-59 and Austria 1957 is wrong, for example). If only the table is deleted, I'm afraid that the rest of the prose left is not enough to justify a standalone article: the information present in the two sections "National finals" and "Internal selections" is of little value, in my opinion. Most parts of it consist of enumerations of examples of various formats, and the rest is based solely on one subpage from eurovision.tv. In my opinion, a condensed version of the two prose sections could be integrated into the main Eurovision Song Contest article and this article be deleted. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry for whoever made the table, but I agree with all the reasons given for deletion. I don't think it's worth maintaining a table with so many problems that need to be constantly updated, instead of focusing efforts on other areas that need improvement. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lampad

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

There's only one source for these nymphs - a fragment of Alcman that says they are the torch-bearers of Hecate. The details about them being gifts from Zeus or what exactly they do are, as far as I can tell, either made up or a conflation of other details about Hecate. That they are torch-bearers of Hecate is something that can be noted in the relevant column on the nymph page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a proposal to delete, but a proposal to merge to nymph. The scholiast on the Iliad, vi. 21, explaining "nymph", says that Alcman listed the Lampades (translated "Lampads" by Campbell) among the nymphs, and goes on to call them "those who carry torches and lights with Hecate" (Loeb Classical Library, Greek Lyric, vol. II, pp. 438, 439, accessible online through the Wikipedia Library). So that part is verified, although the part about being a gift from Zeus is not. Possibly that comes from an oblique reference to the followers of Hecate—it should not be dismissed out of hand, since we know that Zeus showed great favour to Hecate in gratitude for her support. In any case, it's still a matter of merging content into another article, and shouldn't have been brought to AFD. P Aculeius (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is dismissing it out of hand. I generally stay out of wikipedia's oblique bureaucratic processes and rather wish I'd kept to that. I'll just add the detail to the nymph page and not worry about the Lampad page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were dismissing it out of hand. I simply meant that the lack of a source at present did not mean that it was unlikely to be true, and thus worth removing without first attempting to find a source, as it might be if it seemed nonsensical. I am not sure what to make of the claim: it could be a genuine report of what an unidentified source says, or an inference perhaps stretched too far by a Wikipedia editor, or a misunderstanding of the source, or just an inexplicable statement. Since the rest of the content is verifiable, this claim seems at least plausible, and I would like to make certain that nobody here can figure out where it came from before excising it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the content is currently verifiable only because Michael Aurel and I already removed two other unverifiable claims. Though having said that, the claim that the Avernian nymphs are the same group is actually also unsourced. The source cited for that claim doesn't make it. He simply references Ovid's mention of them in an entry on Avernus (I didn't poke around thoroughly, but I couldn't find a source outside of Ovid for them, either).

The Avernian nymphs just happen to also be 'underworld nymphs'. But being related to Hecate is not the same as being a nymph of the underworld. I nominated it precisely because I had already tried to find a source for the claims and could not. Of course I would be happy if more sources *could* be found, because they sound fascinating, but I'm not holding my breath. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the nymphs mentioned by Ovid; I can't find any reliable source which links them with the Lampades, and the claim seems to come just from Theoi.com (which is notoriously unreliable). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. Though the Alcman fragment [38] is the only ancient source which mentions her, there are quite a few mythological figures who may only be mentioned in a single passage or fragment, but still be deserving of a separate article; notability is determined by coverage in secondary sources, not primary ones. In this instance, we have an article [39] on this fragment, which discusses these figures and their relation to a broader discussion of the connection between Hecate and torches; I think something about their significance in that context, based on Serafini, could be added to the article. I note that they are also mentioned (though briefly) in Jennifer Larson's Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. However, the statement about being a gift from Zeus to Hecate (for her "loyalty" in the Titanomachy?) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I can't find any source for it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I believe that the scholiast on Homer is a second ancient source. It's not clear to me whether everything he says about the Lampades is from Alcman, or if he is merely citing Alcman as a source mentioning them among the groups of nymphs. As for the reason that they might have been a gift to Hecate, it could just have been inferred that all of Hecate's authority as a goddess emanated from Zeus. As I recall, she was given a share of all three worlds (the heavens, the earth, and the underworld), which is a pretty broad set of things! I was hoping Morford & Lenardon might have something to say on it, but I couldn't find anything. P Aculeius (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, I would guess the latter, though it's a little hard to tell; it would be interesting to see if the scholion mentions them elsewhere, though an edition of the scholia minora might be a tricky one to hunt down. On the second point, it's possible; I'm sceptical, but would happily stand corrected. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that archive.org is fully functional again, and full text searches are available, here's a summary:
Calame offers no real interpretation, beyond that what the scholiast says is plausible, because of the strong association of Hekate and torches. Amusingly, though, he does suggests that one alternative could be to amend the text to read Limnad (the other being that they are, like the Thyades mentioned with them, to do with Dionysos, rather than Hekate).

Gantz (p.141) mentions they exist, but nothing more. His opinion is that the explanation of them being torchbearers of Hekate is probably the scholiast's own, but he gives no reason. Serafini (p. 18) seems to agree with this (but see Iles, below).

Larson uses the word but has nothing to say of them - fn. 76 simply states what the scholiast gives. The context in which they are mentioned is to do with the appearance of Dionysos in lyric and choral poetry. The important detail is the Thyades, the Lampades just happen to be in the fragment. Whilst literally true that she says something about them, it doesn't even merit being called 'mentioned in passing'. She doesn't even mention Calame's suggestion that they are also followers of Dionysos.

Serafini's paper is more about the association of Hecate and torches in general, and Hecate herself as the torch-bearer. I do not see what could be added from that article to here - no argument that hinges on the Lampades, or extra information given about them. But perhaps someone with better Italian would disagree.

An article by Sarah Iles Johnston's article argues that the 'goddesses with bright torches' mentioned in the Getty Hexameters are the Lampades (which would require the scholiast to be reporting something already in Alcman, or at least a tradition from the 5th century BCE - Iles Johnston assumes the former). Other interpretations are available. Bremmer seems to think they're Persephone and Hecate; Demeter and Persephone are another entirely plausible combo.

For the identification of the Lampades with the Avernian nymphs I can find only Theoi, which itself gives no citation, but simply gives the Alcman fragment for Lampades and then Ovid and Statius (incorrectly - the reference should be 2.6.100) for Avernian nymphs - notably neither quote has anything to do with Hecate or torches.
As to the strange detail of how Hecate acquired the Lampades, I have found a source - and it's the same source that gives us the claim (already removed by Michael Aurel) that their torches can drive people mad: Age of Mythology.

The in-game help section says this: These nymphs were the attendants of Hecate, an unbound Titaness, gifts from Zeus for her allegiance in the Titanomachy. The Lampades served their mistress unflinchingly, bearing torches for her through the dark places of the earth and underworld. The light of their torches brought visions to mortals and often the visions brought madness. The Lampades defended Hecate with their torches just as the Titaness herself fought in the wars of the gods.

This flavour text helps explain an in-game combat power of the Lampades, by which they can 'invoke chaos on units at range'. Its abilities 'chaotic realignment' turns a target neutral (by 'flashing her torch') and forces it to attack any unit nearby; 'Transfiguration' (again activated by a flash of the torch) turns the target into a chicken.

Based on the talk page of the user who created this article, I do not think it is implausible that these details find their origin there. Archive.org's first capture of the theoi article is 2006, and the game came out in 2002. But theoi itself was founded in 2000, so it is not impossible that the creators of this gaming, wanting to find units, powers, etc. that they could assign to Hecate, found the Lampades via theoi, and then expanded the idea so they had a bit more detail to stick in their flavour text. I don't think Age of Mythology is particularly renowned for its adherence to ancient sources.

What we can say for certain, then, is:

We have a single fragment of Alcman mentioning the Lampades. Scholars do not agree whether the scholiast's explanation is his own, or details that were also in Alcman. One scholar thinks that they might be referenced in the Getty Hexameters. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this digging. I've expanded the article a bit, and added new sources. I've held out on removing the unsourced paragraph in the interest of giving it a fair hearing, though I do think your explanation on the basis of the video game seems plausible; also, the latter sentence in the paragraph looks as though it has come from Theoi. [40] – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence may well come from there—but it merely restates what the article already says about being torch-bearing companions of Hecate.

I am not certain that the suggestion in one authority that the scholiast "invented" this detail isn't given undue weight here; all that we know of Greek myth comes from a small number of largely fragmentary sources, so it is quite likely that the scholiast reported what he had learned, or at least could infer from that knowledge (for instance, that Hecate's companions bore torches or lamps, presumably being goddesses like herself, and necessarily traveling by night, since that is when Hecate is abroad; and the Lampades are, by definition, the torch-bearing goddesses) rather than making up details that required pure invention on his part, which is how it reads now. I was merely indicating that we don't know whether this detail in the scholiast can be attributed to Alcman, or if the scholiast is our only known source for it.

As for their association with Hecate's reward for her rôle in the Titanomachy, that may be anyone's guess, since you haven't turned up any usable sources for it. If something turns up later, it can always be re-added. Thank you for expanding and improving the article! P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The point you raise about the article seeming to imply a bit too much that the description of these figures was just a whimsical invention of a sort by a late commentator is fair (I've, for now, softened the language a little in that sentence). I had the same thought when writing that part, but was struggling to find a scholar who expressed an opposing view to Gantz in a clear manner: I don't think Serafini really has an opinion on the matter, Latte (cited in Davies's edition) says it's uncertain what Alcman thought of these nymphs, and regarding Calame, though he does point out that what the scholiast says is "quite possible", I'm not entirely sure whether by this he means it's "quite possible" that Alcman described the nymphs in the same way, or more generally that it makes sense that the scholiast would have made that association. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ancient people and concepts are often based upon a single story in Ancient Greece, or one primary source, or a short chapter in the Bible; think of the Wedding at Cana. Yet there will be reams of scholarship about it. I think this is distinct enough from nymph that a separate article is needed. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I understand it, the nature of citations is that they are monotone increasing, so that once several qualified editors (Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, Vanamonde93) have opined that the subject passes WP:PROF on citation record, they keep on passing PROF indefinitely unless some sort of mistake in the editors' reasoning can be pointed to? One of the editors in the previous debate, and the only one to engage in detail with the PROF 1a claim, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Deliberately not linking to avoid canvassing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, as the nominator does not seem minded to withdraw, that's a keep vote, especially given the below comment by David Eppstein, who is certainly qualified to judge Harvey's contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing presented that might change my previous opinion that he passes WP:PROF#C1 by virtue of his highly-cited publications. Note that in the British system, his previous senior lecturer position is a regular-rank research and teaching faculty position somewhere between the US assistant and associate professor levels rather than (as it would be in the US) a teaching-only position. I suspect his current "visiting senior research fellow" position really means "retired but still active in research". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intimately familiar with the US system (and have not yet looked into Harvey at all), but "senior lecturer" in newer research universities (ie founded post-WW2, but not as a polytechnic) that do not use a Reader grade (such as the University of Sussex, I think?), can cover anything between what David Eppstein discusses and one step below department head (ie Reader) and would definitely imply a partly or predominantly research position. (I see our article mentions "principal lecturer" but I don't recall ever seeing that in use.) I agree that "visiting senior research fellow" position is essentially emeritus whatever position the subject held at the time of retirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "highly-cited publications" are mentioned, but only one publication is in the article now and it's been awhile since the first AFD. If there are many of them, where are they and why are they not within the article? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the GS profile. Certainly a few of the highest-cited could be added to the article, but I will defer to David Eppstein as to which are most important. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a matter of cleanup and expansion, that's fine. But it's been eight years since the last AFD. Again, if these are important somehow, why have they not been added during that time? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: if this was the first AfD I would vote Delete as it is a high citation field, with the caveat that a prior editor mentioned "ISAL awards" (which I cannot find so cannot verify). I think that if we previously decided a page (BLP) was notable we stick with that unless there was a clear error. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

William Black (pianist)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The 3 sources provided are all dead. A search for sources only came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Texas. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: [41] [42] [43] [44]. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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