Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

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 redirect‎ to List of National Premier Soccer League teams. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Pumitas

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

I am having trouble finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this short-lived American soccer team. All that I found were mentions in game recaps (1, 2, etc.). Possible redirect targets include National Premier Soccer League and List of National Premier Soccer League teams. JTtheOG (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and California. JTtheOG (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination.--Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams: as above Demt1298 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:02, 8 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mal meninga kuri

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

Non-notable musician. Only sources are their social media accounts, and the only source online I found was a series of articles by "Post Courier", which doesn't seem reliable at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Asia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- In fact, this article is a candidate for a speedy deletion than a proper deletion discussion. Plasticwonder (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of this article was written by an LLM, so even if it's kept, it will likely need TNT or at least extreme vetting to ensure the material is accurate. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete - Whether or not the writing is inhuman, the musician is only visible in the usual streaming and self-upload services, with no reliable media notice. This article is definitely an attempted promotion regardless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of significant coverage and not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The two sources in the article are just social media. I looked up Google News, but those sources are entirely local - one headline even calls him a "local musician." There’s no evidence of him touring anywhere (for example, to Australia or the Philippines). Again, everybody in 2024 knows that we are not MySpace. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideja (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Musician who clearly has no standing, no reliable source found, clumsy/complimentary writing with no source to support the statements. The only real sources I have found are those of Post Courier, but given the number of articles on this individual within the same newspaper makes me doubt the independence of the newspaper and their seriousness. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:PROMO, WP:G11, and the above comments. Very obviously an ad. Madeleine961 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Asked About You

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

Non notable band. Toby2023 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources, both in the article and online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough info/sources to be considered notable by wiki standards OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this band is being nominated for deletion, there are reliable sources such as Arkansas Times and BrooklynVegan, not to mention the other sources that can be found. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stereogum, BrooklynVegan, Arkansas Times and Numero Group alone form a strong foundation for meeting WP:GNG. Clearly not non-notable. Madeleine961 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Pellicano

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Malta. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG thanks to coverage in major Malta sources such as [1] [2] [3] [4] (Times of Malta) and [5] (Malta Independent). Iffy★Chat -- 10:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy the coverage in Times of Malta is pretty solid, but they all count as 1 source only per WP:GNG ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization"). Malta Independent's ref is just a match report and is not a significant coverage of Pellicano. I'll see if I can find something more. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it provides verifiable information about a notable figure in the opera world, with sources documenting her career as a renowned conductor and her recognition within the field. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Loewstisch This is a biography of a Maltese tennis player. I think you've commented on the wrong AFD. Shrug02 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the keep vote. This article fails WP:GNG guidelines as it pertains to a regional athlete with moderate success. I vote delete and agree with the nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Took upon myself to search for sources to add to my comment at the start of this AfD...and I couldn't find anything besides passing mentions, routine match reports or databases. Fails both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG (Times of Malta's coverage isn't alone enough per the guideline itself). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmmm. This is Malta's highest ranked player and there are several sources that seem to back up her importance there. There is Malta Today's article on her becoming the first Maltese tennis player to win the junior European championship. The Malta Tennis Federation did an article of her. And it's pretty significant when you read a guide on what to do in Malta that her name pops up in an article there too. This is not the US where if something happens 8000 articles get written, but it seems she's a big deal there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click), Malta's highest ranked player (and by far) is actually Francesca Curmi. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time (2019), she was Malta's highest ranked player ever. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Malta Tennis Federation is not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't own her. Tennis Magazine isn't independent of the subject matter either yet we use it. Is it as strong as a NY Times article... certainly not. But as adults I'm certain we can give it the proper weight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources have been provided to demonstrate the subject passes WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VisualPolitik

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

General lack of notability: This is "just another" Youtube channel whose entire notability consists of a few minor appearances in Spanish media. Also, possibly self-promotional. Orphan since creation, with less than 10 editions, and the creator can't be contacted by lack of a contributor page. MaeseLeon (talk) 22:42, 1 December 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 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Politics, Economics, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 2 December 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!} 04:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosral Recordings

AfDs for this article:

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

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say this lacks in-depth WP:SIGCOV in terms of its sources. The sources it does use mostly originate from the same publication, which as you've mentioned have an author related to the label, making them unreliable. Would also say it fails WP:ORGCRIT. Beachweak (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. not really any independent coverage by the sources and an internet search didn't bring up much anything else. -JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

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

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, I've added plenty of reliable news sources and reviews in article such as BBC News, Independent Urdu, 24 News, India Times, DAWN etc. Siginificant coverage found on google. It sometimes spells as Mohabbat Gumshuda Meri in google sources. Siasat Daily of India and The News International of Pakistan called it one of the trending show in India [6] and Pakistan [7].Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The significant coverage being claimed is not reliable. Non-bylined pieces falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, and churnalism do not count towards notability. If the show was worthy of notice, the press would have written more in-depth than a brief mention, mention in a reference about an actress, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; I am opposed to this being deleted: notable cast, notable creator, coverage for verification. https://www.youlinmagazine.com/story/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-a-refreshing-tale-of-teenage-romance/MjUyOA== Review in Youlin (bylined) for example. A redirect (and merge) either to the director or to the list of the programs broadcast by the network but a Keep ~~would not shock me~~ [is also good, see below]. The coverage mentioned by Libraa10 is also an indication. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.

Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)

I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i add repction sources on series by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri: A Refreshing Tale of Teenage Romance[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved with new sourcing which demonstrates it passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you show me which sources show the significant improvement. Adding content without significant coverage would not be HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Youlin Magazine source does not appear to have traction to be considered reliable to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I applaud the effort to improve the contents, but this AfD will be decided based on whether reliable sources provide coverage significant enough to meet our notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Among the sources added after the nomination, most offer moderate significance in terms of coverage and can be viewed as supplementary to the strongest one: The Youlin Magazine, which I find to be a solid pass for WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the prominence of the lead actors and the director in Pakistani media, the drama being broadcast on a well-established national television channel, Hum TV, passes WP:NTVNATL and the fact that its cast and crew have been nominated for or won several awards (related to the network's own award function, 9th Hum Awards) supports its notability (though, these factors alone do not serve as primary evidence for notability, they complement the overall case).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:20, 2 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Sherwood

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the required notability guideline for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG per lack of sources. Google search did not show anything indicative of their notability. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For silent film, Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not rare for actors of early cinema to be uncredited. Given the number of roles he had, he could be considered meeting Wikipedia:NACTOR as a prolific actor in notable productions ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (emphasis mine) -Mushy Yank. 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a number of his roles, they're verifiable so Keep per my argument above. Fwiw, trying to improve the page btw. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)

PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.

1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Emphasis mine. Prolific.

I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.

2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.

3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.

4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.

Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feet of Mud, the film in the article, is one of his few credited roles. And numbers of roles doesn't matter overly much; there are lots of unnotable journeymen actors with as much or more credited roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to create a page about them. And your other assertions are simply. not. true. -Mushy Yank. 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. There are many sources discussing his work in google books; usually in the context of individual parts within specific films. He was a busy character actor that portrayed a range of parts from small roles to mid-sized parts and even a few principal character roles. Altogether the sourcing collectively meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR, and while I didn't do a thorough search, a preliminary search indicates he most likely will pass WP:GNG, if the right amount of time and digging is put into the article, and thanks to Mushy Yank for the work they have put in. He gets a bit more than a passing mention in a 2/16/1931 piece in the The Evening Independent (St. Petersburgh, FL), The Sunday Messenger in Athens, OH calls him a "noted British player", in their review of The Man in Possession on 8/30/1931, even though he is clearly in a supporting role. He has mentions in papers from Adelaide and Murrumbidgee (NSW) to Manitoba, Canada.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical analysis of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. The only source that is not a passing mention is #6 (#9 gives him and another actor a few lines of praise). WP:REFBOMBing doesn't make him notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, but how would REFBOMB apply exactly? As for most sources being "passing mentions", I beg to differ but, anyway, some are clearly used to verify his roles. -Mushy Yank. 08:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of rebuttal II: He meets NACTOR both for his prolific contributions and various significant (and noted) roles in notable productions and that is sourced, As fot a "critical analysis of sources", sourcing is clearly and evidently not an issue here nor is there now any problem that I can identify with that page. Some sourcesinclude more than passing mentions as anyone can verify by reading the page or opening the links. -Mushy Yank. 09:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited roles are not significant. Also, verifiability is not the same as notability. Some sources? Which ones provide more than passing mentions other than the ones I noted? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REFBOMB #1: "Citations lacking significant coverage". E.g. Reference #34: "Alan Mowbray is excellent as Sir Charles Cartwright and Maude Elburne, Forrester Harvey and Yorke Sherwood complete the cast"; #38 "Supporting players in the cast include ... [long list] ... and Yorke Sherwood."; #52: A long list of cast members of A Message to Garcia, including Sherwood, etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just 3 references used to VERIFY three of his NUMEROUS roles. Mentioning them does not demonstrate anything regarding either REFBOMB or notability.

The point of REFBOMB (an essay, as I am sure you know, whereas WP:NACTOR is a guideline) is to avoid having sources misleadingly used to back undue notability claims. The numerous sources prove he made prolific contributions as an actor, a number of (but evidently not all) which ALSO indicate clearly the fact that some of his roles ARE significant, whether you like it or not.

These sources including, for example, the ones that are references to prose citations (just read the article) about his roles are not passing mentions. As for the rest, no one says verifiability=notability. I've spent enough time on this and have no further comments. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you miss the point. Simple verification, by passing mentions, of his roles does not establish notability, no matter how many you dig up. Otherwise, we could create articles for half the actors in IMDb. Significant roles and substantial coverage are required. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly and absolutely certain that I am the one missing the point, "again". Just read my !vote and the page with more attention. I NEVER said nor thought that Simple verification, by passing mentions, of his roles [could] establish notability. for example. The point is: 1) Sherwood has had at least ~~"a few"~~ [multiple] significant roles in notable productions ~~(as you yourself admit!)~~ thus meeting NACTOR 2) there is some significant coverage about him (read the article and all the refs here and on the page) 3) the number of roles matters for one of the criteria of NACTOR (he meets at least two then).

I am rather busy now and this time will really leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I agree he had significant roles? He didn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems you didn't. Amended my comment. (But he did! just check the page...) Note: PLEASE do not change the layout of others' comment when you reply to them, thank you; I've reinstated the original layout of my comment).-Mushy Yank. 16:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I took a film at random: The Invisible Man's Revenge. The two sources list him as a cast member and give his character's name. However, in each of the lengthy synopses, his character is not mentioned at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, NACTOR's "prolific ... contributions" does not mean routine performances, much less uncredited ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:29, 5 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aikande Kwayu

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

Contested draftification. Promotional bio that appears to be written by an editor with a COI. I recommend returning this to draftspace and salting the page since the editor has re-created the page several times now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Religion, and Tanzania. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites far too soon for WP:Prof so Salt for a few years until notability is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I understand that I can't establish notability. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of external articles at this time, but I would appreciate ways to support this for future articles. 137.122.64.210 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources (included or found) suggest WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC are met. Promotional piece by a COI editor. I am minded to agree with SALTing too, given that the creator repeatedly moved the article to mainspace against clear opposition, and appears to have gamed the system to enable them to do that in the first place. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know I did this. I apologize. I'm new to the Wikipedia forum. A college professor gave us a brief tutorial. 137.122.64.210 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional: a photo caption including " She offers her professional work and services in English and Swahili." shows how unencyclopedic this article is. PamD 09:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It smells like promotion. I haven't found a reliable source but maybe others will manage to find one. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of GNG-based notability as argued above, citations are too low for WP:PROF#C1, the other PROF criteria look out of reach, and I didn't find any published reviews of her books that might contribute to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 8 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Louis Athletica players

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of third party coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Almost no notability, and a category does the job better. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'List of X players' can be notable, but not for this club. Giant Snowman 15:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that this list is not notable, particularly as the club did not even compete for two full seasons. I found an article in a local (Alton, Illinois) newspaper from May 2010 that covers the club's demise, and it only mentions a few of the players that were under contract (only the national team players). At most, I could see a list covering the club's most notable players perhaps meeting our notability standards, but that list would be so small I don't see how it would be useful. Jogurney (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saint Louis Athletica and its season articles. There's really no reason for this information to be deleted apart from the fact it's an all time roster for a team that played 1⅓ seasons - this was a top flight football team, albeit a very financially insecure one - and NLIST does not require a list to be discussed in secondary sources, it's just one of the reasons why a list could be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rosters for each season are already on the respective season articles and the final roster is already on the team article. I don't see what a merge would include that isn't already in those articles. Being a top flight club doesn't have any relation here. Let'srun (talk) 14:48, 7 December 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.

List of The Great Food Truck Race episodes

The result was speedy keep‎. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently, this article consists entirely of plot summary, and summary-only descriptions of works are not suitable for Wikipedia. I also believe that it is not notable according to the guidelines on the notability of lists. Proving notability would be next-to-impossible because most coverage that could potentially establish the notability of this list also belongs at the main article, The Great Food Truck Race, and there’s no point in creating a redundant fork of the information at the main article if the list of episodes is not independently notable. —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 21:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 21:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this is the case, but it is possible that particular seasons could be notable. The main article could then link to articles on each season, and each season could briefly describe each episode. If someone thinks they can pull that off, I’d support moving the contents of this article to their userspace. Regardless, I do not believe this article belongs in the mainspace for the reasons outlined above. —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 21:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 22:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if anything, this should likely be converted into a standard format episode list that incorporates real-world information, like we see with most other series. If done, the episode summaries on the existing page may be useful, even if each season isn't split out. Regardless, I do agree that the current page is a problem. Season 11 does already have its own article, but I don't know that every season would be able to pass WP:NTV guidance. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly if every season could have its own page, then maybe it would be better than just a long list of episode summaries. That being said, the information is important for people looking for information about the show. Thenchick (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenchick: The formatting of this article could certainly be improved. Ignoring the formatting, I am concerned that a list of episodes for this show is not notable per the notability guidelines on stand-alone lists. I do not think this topic should have its own article, which is why I nominated the article for deletion, but I may be interpreting the guidelines wrong. Ideally, we can develop a consensus about whether this topic is notable. (If you think this article should be kept, saying that it is useful is typically not the best reason. Good arguments are usually based on relevant guidelines.) —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 07:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a complete overhaul on this article and brought it far closer to the standards we expect this type of list to have, and removed a lot of the fancruft. It's based off of similar lists I've written that have been promoted to featured status (List of Line of Duty episodes, List of Cobra Kai episodes, and List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) episodes). The lead could use a slight expansion, and the plot summaries could be significantly copyedited for tone and MOS:TVPLOT word limits. Other than that though, I don't really see a valid reason to delete anymore given the sourcing it has now for viewership, and an overview on the show. The current list would be far too big to house on the parent article per MOS:TVSPLIT. Despite the suggestion above, not every season can have its own article unless it can meet independent notability guidelines, but I believe this list does. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @PrinceTortoise and Thenchick: to the above response in case they haven't seen the updated version of the list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the work you put into this. I'll stubbornly cling to my arguments in favor of deletion for a little while longer, but if this closes in favor of keep, I'd be willing to take on some or all of the copy editing. —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 00:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this nomination (due to accepted norms about splitting TV articles and ignoring any other rules that might apply) to prevent needless relisting. I trust the judgment of TheDoctorWho and the silent editors who have not seconded this deletion nomination since 1 December. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 00:01, 7 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Zoopocalypse

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

Unreleased film that has been in development limbo and does not meet notability guidelines for unreleased films, which are only notable if production itself is notable. Review of the sources shows that they are not about the production itself, and that they are not independent, consisting of information from the producers.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	cartoonbrew.com	An article about the production company	Yes	No. Passing mention of film.	Yes?	Yes
2	www.animationmagazine.net	A sneak preview of the film	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	deadline.com	A press release about the film	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	variety.com	Combination advance preview and interviews	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	www.instagram.com	An Instagram by the composer	No	Yes	No	No
6	www.animationmagazine.net	A description of the teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No

This article was declined three times in draft space and then moved to article space. It should be moved back to draft space.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – While I would argue the Variety interview, though technically a primary source, should count towards notability, it's not enough on its own and the remaining coverage is trivial. It is reasonable to expect more coverage upon its release. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it does get released. Wikipedia's primary notability criteria for films require the film to have been released to the general public and reviewed by professional film critics; unreleased films in the development pipeline can qualify for articles if they have a lot of production coverage, but the amount of production coverage shown here is not sufficient: for an as yet unreleased film, the bar that has to be cleared is "the film has received so much coverage that even if it collapses and never comes out at all, it will still remain notable specifically as a failed production ten years into the future anyway", which hasn't been met here. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It has had a premiere but didn't garner any reviews. If we had even a single review this might have been a different story, but we don't. Looking at the coverage otherwise shows that this film has had some coverage, but not enough to really show notability for its production. That not only requires that a lot of outlets cover the production, but that they also show a depth of coverage as well. That's not satisfied here. Also of note, the animation and design section contains some light copyvio from the Variety source, so that needs to be dealt with if this is sent back to AfC. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and took care of this myself. The copyvio is extremely light, so the history may not need to be deleted but I felt better not having it on there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:10, 5 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.D Inc.

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

(removed WP:PROD) No sources showing WP:CORP is met. DJ Vlad interview the deprodder added also doesn't count for that guideline. Mach61 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ai sponge

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

I don't think this has very lasting notability - multiple of the sources used are listed as unreliable on WP:VGRS and WP:RS/PS.

In particular:

Dexerto is noted as a "tabloid publication" on VGRS
TheGamer is noted as a "situational source" on VGRS (see: WP:VALNET)
Cracked.com is noted as "generally unreliable" on RS/PS
Medium is a self-published source (see: WP:MEDIUM)

The news coverage of this was also very brief, as no reliable source exists for the discontinuation of the livestream, as well as a lack of reliable sources for Uberduck in general. Also note that the article's creator has been blocked for edit warring. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Technology, and Internet. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's mentioned in some RS in the article, but it's not about this sponge thing... I can only find mentions of an AI Sponge rehydrated, which seems to be version two of this thing. I don't see enough coverage to keep this, nor is what's in the article of much help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: If you can wait on this action, in the coming days I want to do one last thorough source check to see if this article can be saved. If not, the best course of action would probably be to delete. Cheers! Johnson524 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below. Cheers! Johnson524 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are generally up for about 7 days (if they aren't extended due to a lack of consensus to delete/merge/etc.). You have time. wizzito | say hello! 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clickbait and unreliable sourcing, Wikipedia is not for everything memey that appears on the Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DraftLet the editors replace the unreliable with the reliable sources it may take a few weeks or months but we Wikipedians can do it. ThatAustralianBall on YT

05:21 PM, 3 December 2024 (AEDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatAustralianBall (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OK, I've done a complete rewrite of the article from scratch, removing all uncited information. The troublesome sources listed above (Cracked.com and Medium) never mentioned ai_sponge once, so were removed. Here's a breakdown of all the sources now used alphabetically, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources:

Dextero: Is listed as a situational source, with no defense otherwise. Since its not considered completely unreliable, however, it is used sparingly

Dot Esports: Is considered reliable

TheGamer: Is listed as a situational source, but states "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable", which this is

The Mary Sue: Is listed as a situational source, but states "Original reporting is reliable" which this is, denoted by the tag on the top of the page that says "news" rather than "blog"

The rest are not listed, this WikiProject video games, but are used for the following reasons:

Dataconomy: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author

eBaum's World: Does not state to be a blog and has a credited author, but the author uses a sudonym, rather than a real name. The website has a Wikipedia article, but is still used sparingly out of caution.

Global Village Space: Does not state to be a blog, but does not have a credited author "News Desk". Used sparingly.

IndieWire: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author, and a Wikipedia page

LevelUp: Does not state to be a blog, has a credited author

Any sources considered unreliable (like these Medium, Sportskeeda, and Toolify ones) are not used, with the possible exception of a screenshot announcing the channel's end as a back up citation, in a note, in the infobox, which I am happy to remove if deemed necessary. If you believe any of the sources listed above should be reconsidered as unreliable, I can remove them from the page. This was a very comprehensive search for sources, and I have done all I can do for the page at this point. I believe the sources used establish the article's notability, but if you believe they do not, I'm happy to discuss further. Cheers! Johnson524 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnson524's significant repair of the article and addition of new sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Global Village Space is definitely unreliable per sources listed in this discussion. The Wikipedia article for eBaum's World notes "Content is primarily user submitted in exchange for points through a monetary point system" so probably also unreliable. Not sure about Dataconomy or LevelUp either but them not being blogs is not enough to declare reliable. The other sources seem ok but not much sustained coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness Good find on the Global Village Space source! It has been removed from the page. I'm still hesitant to the removing the eBaum source all together but I'll see what others say. Cheers! Johnson524 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am so glad we now have an article for this absolute abomination of an AI experiment, and it meets WP:GNG and some other guidelines which warrant it notability, including WP:NWEB. Excellent repairs as well. Why was the creator's block mentioned in the nom? E_F⁵ 17:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few more noteworthy sources such as this Unilad article, as well as a podcast where SpongeBob and Patrick's VAs discuss about AI, though idk if the latter mentioned about ai_sponge specifically. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blakegripling ph The Unilad article linked doesn't talk about ai_sponge, so I feel like it would be going off topic if it were to be used in the article, but could be useful in possible future pages around the use of AI and cartoon recreations. Thank you again, and cheers! Johnson524 07:03, 5 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda High School, Alkapuri

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Gujarat. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101, did you search for sources in Gujarati or Hindi? Did you directly search for local sources (e.g., the multiple media outlets listed in Vadodara#Media)?

The usual thing to do with a school that isn't notable is to redirect it to Vadodara#Education, sometimes with a sentence or so to provide context. Did you consider that option? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 7 December 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 Weak keep‎. I guess... Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outfolded

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

This article falls just short of the general notability guideline. After a WP:BEFORE search, I had found a couple articles from reliable sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. However, the last three sources do not contain significant coverage of the article's subject. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Softonic also gave it a review. I think there's just enough here to indicate the game got recognized by mainstream sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second. Is Softonic a reliable source? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be trustworthy, has full editorial guidelines, and forbids AI created reviews. If you have evidence that it's not reliable you are free to discuss it in WP:VG/S, but I can't see why it should be excluded from being an RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Sources 3 and 6 are RS. The Softronic link above seems to be a RS, they do have an editorial page as described. More coverage than what we normally see in video game articles. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is about as barely notable as it gets using the WP:THREE method, but the Softonic, 4Gamer and GameZebo articles are RS that describe the game at some level of detail and express evaluative opinions about it. That's not a lot, and the other RS aren't really anything approaching a review, but it's just enough to be notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:36, 2 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: Springbok Challenge 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:10, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conducted search. Does not meet WP:GNG. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:48, 2 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conducted search. Does not meet WP:GNG. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance and unable to sourced. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 6 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic; this one also has a plot summary but that does not really qualify it. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:09, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 1

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic; this one also has a plot summary but that does not really qualify it. No reliable sources. Searched up this one individually, nothing except confusion with an eSports tournament. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:08, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 4

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 3

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 2

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bayme

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

Delete or redirect to American Jewish Committee as WP:ATD. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of Bayme's work for AJC. Academic work and standing is not significantly impactful. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Judaism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found multiple reviews of his books on JSTOR but they were all co-edited volumes: Yitz Greenberg and Modern Orthodoxy, JSTOR 48733587; Rebuilding the Nest, JSTOR 352754; American Jewry's Comfort Level, JSTOR 25834912; Facing the Future, JSTOR 42941514, The Jewish Family and Continuity, JSTOR 23450196, JSTOR 42942533. If even one reviewed book were authored it might push me over to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:44, 7 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 8

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 6

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

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 5

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

Relies entirely on the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chronicling the statistics of the original Gladiators series for the last year or so, and I can confirm these are accurate (same for all the seasons). They are also the only available source of results I've been able to find online. It would be a shame to delete them, in my opinion. Chris2K (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Reilly

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

Not Significant enough. Evolvedtyrant (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolvedtyrant… Could you elaborate your concerns to enable a good debate? Prima facie the CEO of a large media group and chair of the world newspaper body, with coverage, does not seem an obvious concern re notability. SeoR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced and seems to meet WP:GNG - Alison ^talk 03:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there’s significant coverage, but the article is so poorly written and organized that it’s close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. @Evolvedtyrant:, I understand this is your first time nominating an article for deletion but your explanation needs to be far more in-depth than "Not Significant enough". What's not significant? The person? The coverage? Otherwise please do not nominate articles on a whim if you are unfamiliar with notability guidelines. Thanks. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable still, sourcing ok, 1-2 points I will check. Cleaned up some repetition / cruft. Seconding above - putting articles for AfD with under 100 edits, and perhaps not a full study of policy, might be premature. SeoR (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like they are notable, meets WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some cleanup but it should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:48, 7 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 7

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

Article relies entirely upon the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I didn’t bundle nominate these because bundle nominations are so often closed for procedural reasons. You will need to comment at each discussion separately. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 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.

Due West (band)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- NotCharizard ^🗨 19:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wanted to help improve the references for this article, but I found only their own social media, a small news article about a local event, and interviews (i.e. non-independent sources) with the band. If someone else can do better and improve the article, I am very happy with that outcome! But I can not find any criteria in wp:band that they seem to fit. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Sufficient sourcing, and updates, have been made to the article since nomination to show the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 13:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been updated to include a sufficient amount of reliable sources to show notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - how can I help keep this Due West Wiki page from being deleted. I have attempted to correct any false information on the page that had recently been added. I am a member of this band, and understand about COI. Happy to help any way I can. DW Matthew (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: this guidance on disclosing a conflict of interest. As for keeping the article, the band meets the inclusion criteria and I suspect it will not be deleted. JSFarman (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the references used, the band meets GNG and NMUSIC. JSFarman (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been considerably improved since nomination including the addition of new references from reliable sources such as Billboard, AllMusic, Music Row and others. It now passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to @TenPoundHammer for all the work put in to the article since I opened this discussion! Especially with adding the much more difficult to find secondary sources like the newspaper articles. I agree that as the article is now with the improvements, it seems to pass wp:band. Thank you for everyone who has participated here. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:16, 4 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Fourth of July shootings

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

Article reads like a press release and does not show any signs of lasting notability. Seems like WP:SYNTH is violated. Also note there was a similar article that was deleted last year. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no connection to any of these shootings other than the fact that the took place on the Fourth of July. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence these shootings are connected. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This is a poster child of synthesis, tying together several different incidents that have nothing to do with one another, other than the day and year. Admittedly, there’s some sourcing that attempts to tie together the threads, but doesn’t. There’s literally no cause and effect, and for that reason, it’s borderline fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. It's possible there's a notable topic for something like Violence on the Fourth of July, but this isn't even a salvageable starting point. Needs to be built around WP:SECONDARY sources, not news reports of individual incidents. Left guide (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Just a collection of non-notable and unrelated incidents. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire article reads like news coverage and cherry-picks incidents of violence in a few major cities/states. We don't have an article for Fourth of July violence in the United States for every other year, and I don't see why this should be the exception. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:55, 7 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear sufficiently notable. FactorNews article alone seems below significant coverage and Sébastien Delahaye reflection mentions their FTP server. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and France. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem like reliable/significant coverage. Searched for sources in French & English and cannot find any (except blogs) either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG according to what I could find. Last AfD kept the article on the basis that the subject has lots of WP: GOOGLEHITS, which is an argument that is deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator addendum: Found a mention from Les Echos, which quotes it as having "35,000 visitors per day". IgelRM (talk) 20:19, 4 December 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 15:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naufal Ahmad

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

There aren't much to establish notability. Likely doesn't meet WP:BASIC. There are these: [13][14][15][16] but they seem to be routine press releases and I'm not sure if they're reliable. Frost 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. Upon searching, reliable sources (WP:RS) are not readily available, and there is also a lack of significant coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources are either pass mentioned or interview. They do not count toward WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Present sources and external sources does not demonstrate how this subject meets the general notability guideline. I may want to believe that the criteria for politicians were the basis of this creation but unfortunately, this subject does meet that criteria either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:29, 7 December 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 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hurtz

AfDs for this article:

(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) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable achievements, no significant coverage. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is unnotable player, absolutely agree, no problem with deleting this one --DarthBob (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote the article itself, "He has qualified for many European Tour events via the Host Nation Qualifiers, but, has never got past the second round." Ostensibly no achievements worth qualifying the subject for WP:GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the first nomination due to lack of notability. This player is yet to qualify for any major professional dart tournaments and there's no achievements. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Not notable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:42, 7 December 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 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ward (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 6 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Payne (darts)

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have been the best in America at his prime, and I've found some pretty strong sourcing corresponding with that. Longform piece about him in the Cincinnati Enquirer, same in The Indianapolis Star, slightly shorter but still decent piece in The Cincinnati Post. Also found this in The Independent, which focuses a lot on him, and this in the Herald Express and the Sports Argus which is a little more WP:ROUTINE but talks about him becoming a world championship finalist. This article from The Daily Mirror discusses some of his activities after the sport and describes how he was known as the "wild man of American darts" in the 1980s. With all this I'd be pretty confident that Payne was a notable figure during his time. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple appearances on World Championships and several sources provided by the commentator above --DarthBob (talk) 21:24, 3 December 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 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Heard

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, England, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination and comment. Easily fails the sports notability criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 7 December 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 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Capewell

(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) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 google news hits, 2 of those being dartsnews. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails sports notability criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:50, 7 December 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 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qurna (Iraq War)

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

Possible hoax. Unsourced. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Denmark, Lithuania, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a complete hoax, possibly just overblown. I spent a decent amount of time trying to determine if this was a real battle or not, and basically came up empty. It is possible, likely even, that at some point there was some sort of contact between insurgents in the vicintiy of Al-Qurna and Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq) personell that led to combat action, but at best "battle of Qurna" seems like an exaggeration. This war was covered extensively by the international media, and this article alleges ten coalition fatalities and nearly thirty more wounded, but there are zero sources that confirm this. When we can't confirm an event happened, we should not cover that event. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that "The main fighting element in the battle was the Lithuanian Mechanized Infantry Platoon." feels particularly hoaxy. There were all of fifty Lithunians in the south of the country at that time, under Danish command, in various areas of operation. The idea that they had their own mechanized infantry platoon seems unlikely. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only Battle of Qurna I could find was the one in WWI, which we already have an article for. Would also be the seventh longest lasting hoax on Wikipedia (if proven to be one). The Danish soldier mentioned in the article is also mentioned in Dancon/Irak#Awards and decorations though, which was added in February 2006, one and a half years before this article was created. However, that addition was (and still is) completely unsourced. Procyon117 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the verified existence of the WWI battle kind of proves the point, that was <checks notes> exactly one hundred years ago this week, and we have multiple sources and even an illustration of the battle. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if we assume it is not a hoax, it definitely is not notable enough, unfortunately. Though the claim regarding Lithuanian troops, as pointed out by @Just Step Sideways, does sound quite hoax-y. Brat Forelli🦊 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boakye-Danquah

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

Non-notable businessman. Almost all sources are about his family or projects - no significant coverage. No reliable sources were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and Ghana. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be many, an extensive article has been published (as referenced) regarding his appointment as an ambassador for an internationally recognized organization. The legitimacy of his nobility, if relevant, is beyond question. How many publications would be considered "enough" in this context? This article was never about a celebrity to begin with. Moreover, there are numerous nobles with Wikipedia articles solely due to their lineage, despite making little to no impact themselves.

How often do publications feature African personalities in depth, beyond narratives centered on poverty? Efforts like this deserve recognition. Everyone begins their journey somewhere, at their own level. This article should not be dismissed as irrelevant—it represents a significant achievement, not just for an individual, but for an entire continent. AkakomPrincess1 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Vanjagenije (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the article published about him by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, there are numerous references from reliable Ghanaian newspapers that establish his role as a business developer for facilitatiing the Ghana Innovative Housing Project. Furthermore, a reference from the "house of innovations" recognizes him as a business developer in Europe. These points, in my view, provide ample relevance beyond his family ties. 2A01:6BC0:2:F1:1:0:3:543C (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus should be on the „appointment“ to this new role and not what he was before. I see no issues here. 2A01:599:A09:BBE0:8882:787:3002:120F (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable business person, ambassador to the chamber of commerce is more of a business position than anything political. Coverage is PR items or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up title for an up and coming, but ultimately, run of the mill business person without any allegations of notability; "ambassador" is used here in the sense of a lobbyist or college tour guide, not a diplomat. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely rude 2A01:6BC0:2:F0:1:0:0:7F2D (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a LinkedIn profile used to promote a NN BLP. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call, per the nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfor Rahaman

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

Non-notable author. The only source is a Goodreads page of one of his books, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup winning players

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

The effort here is amazing but this is clearly against WP:NOTDIR. If it was a list of players whose name was engraved onto the Stanley Cup, that would make sense. However, this is a list of players which also includes players who did not even play in the series or made a brief appearences. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Ice hockey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, convert the page to players whose names are engraved on the Stanley Cup. I understand, from the talk page of this article, there is an article in progress: User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup. That would make more sense, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. There has been no demonstration as to why is it important to have standalone of every single person ever engraved on the Stanley Cup. The reasons for some to be included or not can go elsewhere such as Chronology of Stanley Cup engravings or List of Stanley Cup champions. I see no reason why this needs to be its own list, when it can be covered elsewhere and does not substantiate its existence. Based on the outcome of this discussion, User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup would be a candidate for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this doesn't meet the GNG or NLIST. It fails WP:OR as well, with the addition of all manner of other people into the mix; who is actually deciding here what a "Cup winning player" is? As far as Leech 44's list, I also agree it's a MfD candidate: it hasn't been substantively touched in a decade, and Leech44 himself has been inactive for many years (he has eight edits in the last eight years). Ravenswing 23:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India

AfDs for this article:

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

Although it has been tagged for notability for over a year, I could not find substantial coverage to meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The book lacks independent reviews, and according to the nominator, the article has long-standing notability issues. Therefore, I don't believe this article meets the criteria outlined in WP:NBOOK. Baqi:) (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Took the bait and looked at WorldCat. There is a copy at Columbia University, but that alone is not enough for notability of a book. Ping me if you find any other information. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sources on the page but one source cannot be reached and the other is a Google link to the book. No significant coverage and no multiple critical reviews about the book. Fails WP:NBOOK. RangersRus (talk) 22:02, 4 December 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 Open system (systems theory). (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment (systems)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this defines a term, but it seems unlikely that it can be expanded beyond "In thermodynamics, *heat* can sometimes be exchanged with the environment". I doubt there is a meaningful history of the concept that "the thing you study interacts with the things around it in some approximated way". There are currently no sources and Google searches (for obvious) reasons do not turn up relevant ones per WP:BEFORE. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, this is kind of stuck at being a dictionary definition, because it's not a concept that stands on its own well enough. The environment or surroundings are just whatever is not the system. It doesn't make sense to give that idea a page to itself. I'm not sure whether deletion or redirecting would be the better course of action; my guess is that we have a lot of short and/or poorly maintained articles in this corner of the project. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open system (systems theory), where environments/surroundings are briefly discussed. I agree with the assessment of XOR'easter. It would be hard to create an article on this topic. In one sense, environments, if they are characterized at all, are described in terms of the interactions they have with the system under study. So a redirect to Open system (systems theory) maybe be a reasonable alternative to deletion for what is a verifiable concept, with the lead and figures being more informative than a Wiktionary definition. On the other hand, the target article has problems of its own. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. That’s been an outcome for other dictionary definitions. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open system (systems theory), which is not a great page but which has the right scope. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 3 December 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. Both numerically and by strength of argument this is basically a three-way tie between options. As we are obviously going to have this article at some point, the distinction between keeping and draftifying is largely academic, so keep wins the day, with draftify as runner-up. Should "keep" fail to perform its duties, draftify will assume its place. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^فث ^{Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Absolutiva (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now. Not sure WP:CRYSTALBALL is an appropriate rationale, as per Mims Mentor, it is almost undoubtedly going to happen with early stages and nominations already in progress. I wouldn't be opposed to a keep either though, although imo I would probably wait a while for more sources before it being moved back to mainspace. Procyon117 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Redirect to the main Miss Universe article. Too soon and this article is not yet ready because most of the necessary details (e.g., specific date, venue, participants, etc.) are not yet confirmed or announced. Vida0007 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Miss World 2025's page can be up and running without a date and venue, I don't see why Miss Universe 2025's can't be as well. Since there are contestants who are confirmed and have sources to back up that they will be competing at Miss Universe 2025, I think that should be enough to keep the article. I also don't think WP:CRYSTAL BALL applies here because it's not like we're making an article for Miss Universe 2040, it's the next edition that candidates are already starting to be chosen for. Rararawr21 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be Kept, then I think Draftification is fine. This will almost certainly happen and sources are beginning to come through so this will eventually be an article in the mainspace anyway, it just depends on when there is enough information/sources. Rararawr21 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this is leaning towards not keeping this in mainspace. But I don't see consensus for any specific outcome yet, whether it be deletion, draftification, or otherwise. Relisting to obtain more discussion around particular outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know it isn't kosher to !vote in an AfD that I started. I just want to make it clear that, if the draftification wasn't contested, I would've draftified it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: this page was created by a cut and paste move from Draft:Miss Universe 2025. I have repaired it and removed the draft in the process, but any extendedconfirmed editor should be able to draftify the article if that is the result. If not, ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already confirmed participants. Already plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article have been improved and updated since nomination.BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. Both are fine, articles on future events that are fairly certainly going to happen are not CRYSTALLBALL and are okay, but this is article is pretty sparse at the moment. I lean towards keeping in mainspace, though, as minor content issues aren't a great reason to draftify. Toadspike [Talk] 16:47, 8 December 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 as created to soon.‎. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Chief: Subic Bay

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

Film has a single source and upon quick search on Google there is no quality citations yet. The film has unknown filming status. See WP:NFF. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the trailer for the film upon your Google search.... Moviebuffguy408 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The article is too soon, and more sources will likely become available upon the film's release. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Same as CanonNi, the article is too soon, but more sources may become available in the future. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now as this is still an upcoming film --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this unreleased film. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 3 December 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!} 05:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA rookie single-season rebounding leaders

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

Appears to fail WP:NLIST; unable to find any independent secondary reliable sources discussing this list topic as a group or set in a WP:BEFORE search. It's possible this is tracked in stats databases, but such sources alone are insufficient in affirming wiki-notability. Left guide (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NLIST. There are individual sources that show the top three, but this list is the top 20 and I've not seen any to justify top 20, top 10, or even top 5. Conyo14 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Basketball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NLIST. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:01, 4 December 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 Mandatory (company). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameRevolution

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

Half of this article is sourced from Game Revolution itself. Not seeing enough secondary sources on the site which makes this website appear to not be notable to get its own article. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Websites. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the sources, none of them clearly give reliable/significant/independent/secondary coverage. The only possible ones are the two sources (DMW & Reuters) discussing the purchase, but the coverage is not very significant, and the Reuters one is explicitly a press release, while the DMW one is very likely one anyways. Google books/regular search reveal no sources and there is no obvious reason why any should exist, given it's a minor gaming news source that features in awards sometimes. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SIGCOV, and lack of notability. Encoded Talk 💬 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandatory (company) per WP:ATD

IgelRM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandatory (company) per WP:ATD. Does not seem standalone notable though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandatory (company) as a clear ATD. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fibras Industriales S.A.

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

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to see whether support is for Merge, Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keen as I am on ATD outcomes, I don't think 4meter4's suggestion here can work; placing any one product vendor into the Fishing net article would be undue attention. We would need strong evidence of such a firm's dominant / innovative place in that sector. That throws discussion back on evidence for its notability, and, at the moment, a piece based around a distribution deal announcement and an article by the company's director fall far short of demonstrating that. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching on Fibras Industriales / FISA / etc. I am not finding the independent sources needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm still not seeing a clear consensus for any one option. As several users have commented that the solution may be more editorial than a notability issue, this result will provide that opportunity. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a dictionary definition article. Instead, it's a stub article on a tactical warfare concept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, we have an article on that concept already, close-quarters battle. If you are suggesting that a melee is different than close-quarters battle, you will need to explain how, because the article even admits they are the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Simply search "melee combat" and an additional modifier to weed out the computer game books. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am, unfortunately, drawing a blank on outside the tabletop and video game realm. Rather than saying "wow it's so obvious", it would assist if you explained fully how melee combat is not CQB, or at least is different enough for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard about close quarters combat until right now, but I could have told you that melee combat was close range medieval combat. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found several sources on the form of medieval tournament, but we've got Tournament (medieval)#Melee for that. Furthermore, Melee (tournament) is the former page for that. This page still seems superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was previously AfD'd back in 2015 for similar rationales to the nominator. I'd recommend giving it a read to avoid any restated arguments, especially since I'm seeing a few here from both sides already. I'm personally leaning to a deletion, and then having the DAB page made primary, but I'd like to see what extent of coverage the !Keep votes (@4meter4 and @SportingFlyer) are able to turn up before I make a final assessment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Magneton is, nor how it might be relevant here. Can you explain? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas That's part of my signature, and not an argument I'm making. Apologies for the confusion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid concept. As the article itself points out, a close-quarters battle is not necessarily a melee and the article does not admit they are the same. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / replace with the disambiguation page. Not notable as a standalone topic separate from the other articles unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Nurg (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, there's already Melee (disambiguation). -- mikeblas (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right – I'm supporting the proposer's suggestion of renamimg Melee (disambiguation) to Melee. Nurg (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments divided betwen Keep and Deleting it and moving a DAB page to this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that another relevant article is Hand-to-hand combat, which is essentially close-quarters combat, but without ranged weapons, and more focused on history, although a good part of it currently (emphasis) focuses on unarmed combat. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make disambiguation, which should include Hand-to-hand combat -- a melee appears to usually just mean "a chaotic hand-to-hand combat"; the only stipulation is the hand-to-hand combat article refers to close-range weapons only and not guns, etc. so the Close-quarters battle should also be linked because the phrase "a chaotic melee with guns" is valid. Current content of the article is largely an etymology (a very nice etymology, but it still belongs in a dictionary), and does not need to be merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee#Usage in gaming was merged from Melee (game terminology) and can be moved to ~~Glossary of video game terms~~Tabletop game or a relevant subtopic. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best alternate place for it would probably be Role-playing game terms. I suggested that in the AfD but it did not draw support at the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Melee combat" is clearly a notable concept - searching Jstor returned thousands of reliable, scholarly sources. The article on close-quarters combat explains how melee combat is a subcategory of CQC that does not include ranged weapons, so I oppose merging there. A merge to Hand-to-hand combat is likely appropriate, but I don't think an AfD that's been open for over a week will result in a consensus for that merge. I advise the nominator to open a merge discussion after this is closed if they would like to explore that option. Toadspike [Talk] 08:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toadspike. When I search JSTOR for the phrase "Melee combat" I get 29 results. Could you please re-do the search and tell us the exact number you get. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on "melee" and then selected those in the history category. This gave me 11,766 results. Not all are on melee combat, but there are many there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. For all we know, 11,765 of them are just trivial mentions. This is not a policy-based argument unless actual sources are brought forth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't use quotes around the term. I've gone back to the Wikipedia Library's EBSCO search to find THREE (actually four) good sources with indisputably significant coverage: [17] and [18] (two similar MEDRS-level sources on stress in melee combat), [19] (the whole article is about women in research on melee combat, but it only says "melee" once, later uses refer to "the topic of discourse" or "the subject of this analysis"), [20] (about the specific use of "melee" to refer to tournaments).

I also see plenty of sources on Roman infantry tactics that mention "melee", including this one that says "Polybius’ battle narratives largely support the notion of melee combat constituting the main stage of infantry combat on the battlefield. Other Greek and Roman historians seem to fit our proposed model as well." and this one this one about melee depicted in classical art. While these don't use the specific word "melee" as much, they show the significance of the concept in classical history.

That said, I would still support a merge to hand-to-hand combat as an ATD. Toadspike [Talk] 09:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike There's definitely some good coverage here regarding melee combat. I'm a bit concerned, though, about the overlap between melee and other types of close quarters combat, since I'm not sure if they're synonyms or acting as two distinct forms of combat in this context, especially since a few of these mention both in the same article, though melee seems to be the one most predominantly used. Would you be willing to clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far it still seems like the best option is: Move to "melee combat", redirect to hand-to-hand combat as a total WP:OVERLAP, then put the DAB in this place. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible challenge with this is melee is also used in descriptions of naval combat, particularly in the pre-steam era. In that context it tends to refer to close-in combat, which isn't always hand to hand. Intothat darkness 19:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness: Seems like a hatnote situation. "Melee combat redirects here. For close-ranged naval combat, see..." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just trying to avoid tunnel vision on the subject of melee. Too many seem to think these things originate from gaming, when in fact they don't. Intothat darkness 02:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was already clarified elsewhere but I'll restate it here for @Pokelego999: As I understand it, "melee" is close-quarters combat without ranged weapons, while "close-quarters combat" includes ranged weapons like guns. Thus, I oppose merging "melee" to "close-quarters combat", but I am okay with merging to "hand-to-hand combat". I must also emphasize that I ~~am okay with a merge but~~ strongly oppose redirecting, since Melee includes significant chunks of relevant, well-cited content. Toadspike [Talk] 09:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, melee doesn't always refer to close combat without weapons. Cavalry engagements in the Civil War, for example, have also been described as melees even though both sides were armed with pistols in addition to sabers. Pigeonholing it in hand to hand or as some kind of gaming term risks losing context and in my view is a form of Synth bordering on OR. And CQB (along with close-quarters combat) is a much more modern term. Melee in older usage tends to refer to combat within close distance without formations or much in the way of formal or organized tactics. It isn't limited by weapon types but more by distance and a possible lack of tactical organization. Intothat darkness 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A merge/redirect is not appropriate and would be WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my semi-!vote to merge above, since Intothatdarkness makes a good point about the very unclear definitions of this term, and I now believe no merge target is entirely accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I'd urge you to look at the article now. After doing a pass checking for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH the amount of "well-cited content" is very little. Much of it was not accurately reflecting the sources at all. What's left is essentially just a definition that is better suited for Wiktionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article. What is left is enough to show that this is not a dictionary definition. No dictionary will explain how the term was used in the Kriegsspiel, by H. G. Wells, or in D&D. And the sources I left above (which show that this term meets the GNG) have not yet been included – if they were, we would move even further from the realm of dictionary definitions. Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article admittedly needs some work, but melee is not the same thing as CQB or some of the other concepts proposed above. Intothat darkness 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I feel the subject's independent notability is unclear, but the sourcing and definitions do vary enough to where there isn't clear overlap. This is better discussed editorially where these differences can be resolved without the pressure of an AfD, and for the time being the article should suffice as a standalone subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:32, 6 December 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 environmental films#Ultimate Tornado. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tornado

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

Not sure this one-off documentary from 2006 meets notability guidelines. Happy to be proven wrong but can't find it anywhere other than in directories and mirrors. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of environmental films per WP:ATD. On a side note, this was part of a series called Ultimate Disaster. It was second of four documentaries in this series.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of environmental films#Ultimate Tornado (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a row anchor to the table in the list article. I did not find significant coverage about Ultimate Tornado in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds fantastic to me. jengod (talk) 16:58, 3 December 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. ✗plicit 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [21] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [22]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [23]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to delete, although it seems some sort of move and/or merge and/or expansion may be in order. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

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

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000 personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sources. The creator of this has been indef blocked "(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Numbers do not match citations...this is intentional.)" I didn't look through all his lists etc, but don't need to. The People's Republic of China has more than a billion population. It's not even reasonable to believe they could have only 7 generals. Also, there are different levels of generals within any military. — Maile (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the reasons above, and because we already have various articles that already list this material, just to give a couple of examples. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider rename per the excellent points raised by 4meter4 (talk · contribs). There is a corresponding Chinese Wikipedia list at zh:中华人民共和国现役正战区级以上将领列表. The list's scope is "List of active-duty generals who are at or above the level of theater command in the People's Republic of China". That article has 30 sources for the 36 generals listed there.
This article is accurate in listing seven of the top generals "who are at or above the level of theater command in the People's Republic of China". It can be improved by adding the sources and the other generals at or above the level of theater command from the Chinese Wikipedia article. It can be improved by being renamed to include only the top generals. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Johns Hopkins University student organizations

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of third party coverage of the list as a grouping, and also is a case of WP:NOTPROMO as this reads like promotional material for the school. PROD was removed with additional sources added but they appear to only be concerned with fraternities and sororities, not student organizations. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Fraternities and sororities, Lists, and Maryland. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a spinout from Johns Hopkins University, which is the subject of the article. The list approximates WP:CSC point 3. It's not clear that there is anything promotional here which cannot be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid creation given the size of the main article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least two secondary sources are included. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source for Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities[24], created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution. Furthermore, as mentioned above by others, the university itself has notability; this article is a spin-off that helps reduce the length of the institutional article and carries that notability with it. Rublamb (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nissrine Chaoudri

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

Non-notable artist. None of the sources are independent, and the article is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Morocco. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, no sourcing used that isn't primary. I can only find [25], she organized a festival. I don't see a listing in the Getty ULAN either [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G11, promotional with no kernel of notability to rescue under the promotion. No evidence of being in the collection of bluelinked museums or other accomplishments that might pass WP:NARTIST. I note that the version of the same article on the Spanish Wikipedia has recently been deleted as promotional and the French one has been proposed for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Subject seems to have no notability, seeing as the only sources to account for the individual are their own sources. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly promotional, primary references, nothing that isn't from her. Procyon117 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No speedy deletion, seriously? The "sources" that are primary are from YouTube, Instagram and Facebook which are not reliable, this person is not notable. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:12, 3 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The 2nd source, Delhi-Magazine, is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state above voter misstates when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. GrabUp - Talk 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Wikipedia's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. GrabUp - Talk 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met even if INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by Jclemens.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from India Today appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is an RS? Taabii (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

chatbot-generated post

- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Wikipedia entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

- We want to keep the discussion among humans, and this preceding post looks like it was written by AI/language model. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage

- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chatbot-generated post

~~Keep~~striking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Wikipedia entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the cited sources, many are problematic: interviews that constitute primary sources per WP:INTERVIEW, unreliable websites like Delhi Magazine and TheSportsGrail, and others with passing mentions only. While India Today and Times of India are RS, their coverage is not substantial enough to establish notability for a standalone biography. The subject's prominence appears to stem mainly from social media following and controversy, which alone do not merit inclusion. Without multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage, the article should be deleted. Madeleine961 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per the comments above. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:57, 7 December 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.