Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 04	September 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Bin Salleh

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

Article lacks notability. Only citation is a passing mention; found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Was prod 15 April 2009, two days after created. JoeNMLC (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 18:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No awards or some sort of notability about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79lives (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anthony Kiedis#Family and relationships. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yohanna Logan

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

A biography of a living person with paper-thin sourcing. While the one source attached has some depth to it, it seems like the main reason this person is the subject of an article is implied notability-by-assosciation because she had some sort of relationship with Anthony Kiedis and he may or may not have written a song based on that relationship. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any sourcing about this person, the source used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthony Kiedis#Family and relationships per WP:NINI and WP:ATD-R. I added a source there describing her as a fashion designer (I found a few passing mentions to that effect in trade journals, but even much of that seems to be in connection with her relationship with Kiedis or other rockers). She also seems to have been a witness at age 17 regarding the alleged sexual abuse of her sister by a politician (if indeed this is the same person). All in all a shabby case for WP:N. StonyBrook _babble 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà (album)

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

I don’t believe this album passes WP:NALBUM. There are apparently plenty of refs but many are now 404 and many others aren’t actually about the subject at all. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I used User:InternetArchiveBot to rescue 11 references in the article. Perhaps that will address the nominator's concerns. Whenever you see an article with a 404 reference, it may be a good idea to run https://iabot.wmcloud.org/ on the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources being dead/unarchived does not affect their reliability, so this wouldn't've been a problem in regards to this AfD, but of course it is good to check for archives anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for finding those, which I agree I should have found myself. However they reinforce my deletion rationale. There are lyrics sites, concert publicity, an interview with the singer etc. but zero in depth coverage of the album in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.estadao.com.br/cultura/voila-a-simplicidade-de-rhaissa-bittar-imp-/ https://www.melhoresdamusicabrasileira.com.br/2010/12/16-rhaissa-bittar-voila.html or rename Rhaissa Bittar and expand as she and her other records have received coverage that allow a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s really just more of the same, not in-depth independent coverage of the album. The singer herself may be notable enough for an article but this isn’t it. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the Portuguese Wikipedia article about the singer I think her notability looks very questionable too. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned article about a random album by an artist who lacks sufficient notability for an article themselves. Online mentions of album are trivial and not revealing significiant coverage or impact. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... but perhaps encourage interested editors to create an article about the singer. Via Google Translate, it appears to me that most of the sources currently used in the article are about the singer's larger career, with only passing mentions of this particular album. The album itself has a few reviews but they are mostly from bloggers. Wikipedia would be better served by an article about the singer (which would have to survive its own notability test), rather than this singular album article with no context. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HOOPLA!

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

No appearance of notability; found no additional coverage. PROD expired but was rejected due to a prior PROD which I must've missed. Related OOPSTAD deleted by PROD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Technology. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found coverage for a programming language [1], nothing about this magazine. I don't think we have enough to keep the article... Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the provided reference above, which seems more like a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, I can’t find anything about the magazine and nothing that makes it notable. cyberdog958^Talk 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also haven't been able to find any extended coverage (or even that it really existed beyond the one Google Books link in the article) - definitely not enough to prove notability. Gazamp (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas season

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

Football team season in the Brazilian lower leagues. No indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. JTtheOG (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brazilian lower leagues Are you sure? Looks like Série B, the second tier, to me. Also, Botafogo ("In 2000, Botafogo finished 12th in a vote by subscribers of FIFA Magazine for the FIFA Club of the Century") is a huge club. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article requires improvements, but not fails in WP:GNG. The G-12 seasons always had full coverage regardless of the division. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: Good point. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. Giant Snowman 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Sacco

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was this transfer announcement and this national team call-up. JTtheOG (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's WP:TOOSOON for this U-21 player. Did find one more article in Times of Malta, "Gżira into FA Trophy quarters after Sacco blunder". Cielquiparle (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Reeve Township, Daviess County, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennyville, Indiana

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

There's a church of indeterminate age a short ways down the road, but otherwise it's just a farm which clearly goes pretty far back (staves silos and an arch-roof barn) and a few separate houses. Other than that I could find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reeve Township, Daviess County, Indiana. It’s apparently a tiny hamlet in a township of about 650 people. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? At the moment, one can see from GMaps that it is a farm at a crossroads and a church a little ways to the east. If you can find more positive evidence of a settlement here than a GNIS entry, great, but I am disinclined to redirect this to the township when there's insufficient reliable evidence to support the claim about it made there. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is. There was a fatal accident near Pennyville, in Reeve Township, Daviess County, Indiana, in 1970. During a storm in 1995, Pennyville reported three-quarter-inch hail. Back in 1938, Reverend Wilma Louise Allen started preaching at Oak Grove Church in Pennyville at the age of 14. In 2007, people were still being buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Pennyville. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are passing references used to locate something (two incidents and two references to the church). In the case of the hail one can look at the area in aerials and see that it has exactly the same buildings now as it has then. None of these actually characterizes the place. The church unfortunately lacks a website or even a Facebook presence but from what I can read of its sign on streetview it doesn't say it's in Pennyville. We need something that talks about Pennyville in its own right and not just as a location on a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reeve Township, Daviess County, Indiana, as suggested by Bearian. Pennyville is a real human settlement, but there's not too much more to say beyond the 1995 hailstorm, the Oak Grove Church and Cemetery, and other facts mostly culled from obituaries. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reeve Township, Daviess County, Indiana, as suggested by Bearian and supported by Cielquiparle.

I've come to the conclusion that we need to categorically eliminate these upmerges as a solution, because it turns into sweeping the issue under the rug. Since the invariable result where there is consensus that there is a settlement is to have a separate article, in practice the upmerge is only proposed when there is disagreement over the place's character at least to the point of lacking solid evidence; but the inevitable claim in the large area is that the place is a settlement. So if we remove that, then we have a redirect to an article that doesn't say anything about the place for which info is sought. And we should remove it, because there's a lack of consensus that it is true. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Hansen

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

Practically all the sources don't contribute to notability, either being unreliable, minor mentions, PR fluffery, or made by him. OhHaiMark (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. OhHaiMark (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is so poorly written (or translated) that I can’t tell if he’s a lobbyist, advertising man, or a lawyer. I’m leaning towards delete based on WP:TNT, unless someone else can clean up this wreck. Bearian (talk),
Delete. Only two of the nine "secondary" sources even mention Stefan Hansen, and those are brief mentions confirming that he was the managing director of Dorland since 1989, plus a press release quote about how fond he was of working with Grey, which divested from Dorland in 2014. Quick ProQuest search finds several other Stefan Hansens who could arguably be more "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, such as the CEO of NTT Data DACH...as well as a quote from the Dorland CEO Stefan Hansen predicting in the Wall Street Journal back in 1994 that no one in advertising would find it attractive to work in Berlin. Agree that the article itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rowen, California

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable railroad siding. Not mentioned once in a comprehensive history of Kern County: [2]. The previous AfD closed no consensus because there was a post office here for 2 years. Only extremely trivial passing mentions of this place could be found, and nothing has been added to the article in the 3 years since the last AfD. In short, it fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND; having a post office does not in itself confer notability, and the mentions dug up in the last AfD (two legal proceedings and a questionable passing mention in a gazetteer) do not amount to significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete The post office argument is no good for a rail point: at one time virtually any place the trains stopped had a post office. Other than that there's nothing supporting a supposed community. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the necessary contribution of this article. Alon9393 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. primarily due to the lack of any reliable sources to verify article content even after participant's efforts to find them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. Has no reliable sources. Couldn't find any elsewhere. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BAND #5 with two full length albums on Artoffact Records, a significant indie label that has been in operation since 1999. As usual with start class articles like this, the article does need help, but that on its own is not deletion criteria. -- t_kiehne (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion doesn't hinge on listing the albums, it hinges on showing that the albums received coverage about them (e.g. reviews by professional music critics) in WP:GNG-worthy publications. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are statements here that would be acceptable notability claims if they were reliably sourced — but notability doesn't hinge on what the article says, it hinges on how well the article supports the things it says with WP:GNG-worthy referencing to verify that the things it says are accurate. But this article cites no reliable sources at all, and even a WP:BEFORE attempt to find better sources fetched only primary sources and irrelevant accidental text matches, and turned up not one hint of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the band or their albums at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. I similarly wasn't able to find coverage in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golpo Chalao Film Banao

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

Although there was plenty of publicity for this competition in 2014 it appears to have been a one off and the coverage is largely churnalism. IIt therefore does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Events. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned and doesn't appear to satisfay WP:GNG; coverage was trivial and appears to be largely just typical coverage of press releases when show launched. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. The article has changed beyond recognition and for the better, no opinions expressed to delete. No further reason to leave this open (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Abrar Fahad

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

This is complex. It's written about Fahad, the man, who fails WP:BIO. His murder may be notable, but in my opinion has not been shown to be, despite reliable sources reporting that it triggered mass protests. I'm certain my opinion will be unpopular, so accept consensus may be against me. However, if his murder passes WP:GNG the article as a biography does not, the title notwithstanding. WP:TNT is required to make this, or an article about his murder. This article as it stands needs to go. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Events. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If and when WP:HEY is achieved I will be happy to withdraw his nomination. Please notify me 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A murder that sparks nationwide protests and is covered internationally (BBC, Voice of America on the verdict two years later, news.com.au) satisfies WP:DIVERSE. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN: This has served its purpose. no opinions to delete 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleppey Ripples

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

This team plays in a tournament without great coverage, and so we so not require separate team articles. Does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Kerala. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for other teams from the same league:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per nom. AA (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafty/Merge All There are no significant sources, this is just a team participating in a state cricket league, this event has not been held yet, and the team has not participated in any other tournament, It can be kept as a draft until the event takes place, or Merge into Kerala Cricket League ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry Up Tomorrow

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

Redirect to the Weeknd discography per WP:FUTUREALBUMS which states that "An article about a near-future but not yet released album qualifies for inclusion if critical information about that album has been confirmed in reliable sources. This must include the title, cover image, release date, track listing, and other critical information as required in an album article. A separate article should not be created until such information is available and confirmed by the musician and/or their record label, and reported upon by reliable sources." For all we know, the only thing worth noting here is the album title. Not even the release date was announced. It's just too soon. dxneo (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Canada. dxneo (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero reason at all to remove. The project has been announced and the rollout is in motion 12.86.1.138 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point us to that "motion." dxneo (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the trailers and album title announcement video 💀 67.188.112.116 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that it's very early. The article as it is currently seems to be inviting some questionable edits since there really isn't enough verifiable information right now. I do think it's possible more information will be released at the Weeknd's "special concert" in Sao Paulo on September 7th. Worth mentioning from WP:FUTUREALBUMS: "For high-profile artists, upcoming works may be notable months in advance, and the date at which an article for that album becomes viable is not directly related to its eventual release date." Of course this is speculation, so if coverage hasn't changed past the concert, I don't see any reason not to redirect it. Limmidy (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The nomination references an older guideline with stricter wording, but the current guideline seems more lenient: "An article about a near-future but not yet released album qualifies for inclusion if it has been covered by multiple non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." This article easily passes that. Following the album cover reveal and the concert, I think coverage is likely to increase, so I'm going to shift to keep. Any unconfirmed information can always be reverted. Limmidy (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: At least for now, the Weeknd has not even released information about the album outside of its title, we do not even have a tracklisting or album cover yet, so it isn't really appropiate, he has not even made any hint that could lead to an upcoming single. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 04:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as too soon. The subject is better covered in The Weeknd § 2024: Hurry Up Tomorrow. There's not enough known about the album to flesh out a proper article, so we're ending up with things like detailed descriptions of Instagram teasers and misrepresentations of the album's inspirations. hinnk (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think any amount of paying attention to them would immediately disqualify the notion that they are misrepresentations, about as spelled out as it gets 67.188.112.116 (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's misrepresenting the source either way. We've gone from "Fans began to speculate what the third and final album of the trilogy, with many comparing it to Dante's epic, The Divine Comedy" to suggesting it as a direct inspiration. We can just describe it in a more reasonable level of detail in The Weeknd and expand that until it's ready to be split into a separate article. hinnk (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the source quite literally says "Fans began to speculate what the third and final album of the trilogy, with many comparing it to Dante’s epic, The Divine Comedy, which sees a man make his way through the inferno, purgatory and paradise" ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abel has just released the official album cover art on his Instagram account, and he is probably going to perform many new songs today which will bring in a slew of news. I think we should keep the article. --Osh33m (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yesterday I most likely would’ve agreed, but with the album cover being revealed, I’d say that it would be a waste of time to delete or redirect the article only to immediately have to put it back up as Abel reveals more and more information about it. KDoppenheimer (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He has released the cover so information will probably start to surface more rapidly now. Anything unconfirmed should continue to be reverted, though.--N Ø 19:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously it is a little early, but this is a new album by the biggest artist in the world. As the very page you linked says For high-profile artists, upcoming works may be notable months in advance, and the date at which an article for that album becomes viable is not directly related to its eventual release date. There has been extensive media coverage and considering the cover art was announced today its fair to assume this extensive coverage will continue as the Weeknd releases more info. A lot of this coverage is in the article already and many more can be found through a simple google search, it's not a very obscure thing. If it was gonna be deleted September 5th when this nomination was created, it would've been recreated within a week, would be a waste of time and editor resources for no reason.
Side note, can someone point me to where the WP:FUTUREALBUMS section says This must include the title, cover image, release date, track listing, and other critical information as required in an album article. A separate article should not be created until such information is available and confirmed by the musician and/or their record label, and reported upon by reliable sources? I cannot find it. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ULPS Just looked into this, it seems the nomination referenced an old version of the guideline. Limmidy (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I assumed it was something like that, thank you. It also makes sense (to me at least) that the language is less strict now about the must stuff. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I guess I was holding on to that old version. My mistake and sincere apologies. dxneo (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course we could be deadly principled and get rid of the work here that is done so far, or draftify -- but sometimes it's just a fuss too much. These days entertainment-marketing messages (eg. the hype) are managed as rapid still consistently developed (cover, date, tracklist, as in FA). The guy in question here is a global A-lister, and info on his new album is just major news being developed as we speak. Let's give us a break and make one of these exceptions. — Kochas 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is already receiving wide secondary source coverage alongside its supporting concert. --DovahDuck (talk) 09:33 PM, 7 September 2024 (EST)

Keep The album is not only receiving coverage as others have discussed above, but 9 new songs were performed at his Sao Paolo show. This leads me to believe the release (or the announcement of the tracklist / release date) is imminent. — Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can now pre-order CD and vinyl, album cover was released, songs form the album were performed at a concert in Brasil, the fact that the Weekend is releasing this album is all over internet to find in reliable sources, and it's the Weeknd, one of the most popular arists on the planet. Let's not pretend this is a non-event. The article will be expanded soon. — Max24 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you guys okay? Have you just heard of The Weeknd? Come back in a year and realize just how ignorant this nomination is. I'd imagine you'll be hearing several of the songs from this upcoming album for the next several years straight nonstop. I've been doing this for over 10 years. Broke a few norms to convey this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver24shil (talk • contribs)

Keep Waited to reply until after the concert and turns out he in fact revealed more of the album and even performed songs of it, put it on pre-order, etc. Lk95 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Weeknd has now put the album on pre-order and has released the cover art. As he has also performed some of the songs featured on the album (which is accessible via his YouTube channel), this page should be kept. Cdt005 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – had similar Wikipedia:TOOSOON concerns whilst creating Songs for Sinners & Saints. That went unchallenged, and the album released. The Weeknd definitely releasing his anyway. Roasted (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion is needed! Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you nuts? He is literally in the middle of the album roll out. Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile panic

AfDs for this article:

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

This poorly written article discusses an important topic, while overlapping heavily with Problematic smartphone use ... "Mobile panic" is a nebulous idea, next to no sources, no echo on the net and is badly written and structured. I am not opposed to the content as such. Just it would be easier to start anew with a more substantial angle and title, rather than edit the whole article, with no one motivated for such a tedious job. And I suppose that is why the article has attracted so little attention and so few edits over the past 4 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGcoa (talk • contribs) 18:22, September 5, 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The capitalization of the article title was wrong. I have fixed it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-standard term for a nebulous topic that would better be discussed elsewhere. Poor content; title unsuitable for becoming a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially a personal essay version of Problematic smartphone use. "Mobile panic" appears to be a term coined by a single researcher that hasn't seen enough use to meet WP:SIGCOV. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Problematic smartphone use. I’m not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of speakers of the Assam Legislative Assembly. asilvering (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy speakers of the Assam Legislative Assembly

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

The subject of this list fails WP:NLIST. The only source is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a WP:BEFORE search turns up no examples of this group of individuals discussed as a group. A category already exists for navigational purposes, but as a standalone list there's no evidence of sufficient notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of speakers of the Assam Legislative Assembly. A not insigificant parliamentary role; would treat as a corollary of WP:NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have generally done that (not sure the deputy speaker office is notable; there's no page on it), but as a compromise AtD I would accept a merge as suggested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Goldsztajn. Categories and lists are not automatically redundant with each other — a list can provide the dates of a person's service in the role, while a category cannot, and a list can have references added to verify the information, while a category cannot, and a list can be ordered chronologically in order of service, while a category cannot — so lists are not automatically redundant with or duplicative of categories, since they organize the information in different ways.
The sourcing is a problem, but it's within the realm of possibility that better sourcing could be added — I don't have access to the tools needed to find archived Indian media coverage myself, so I'm not the guy who could fix that, but somebody else with better access to the right resources might well be able to improve it.
So really, the only relevant question here is whether this needs its own standalone list, or can just be a subsection of the main list of speakers, and with inadequate sourcing it should be the latter. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can expand it with better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV#Reality/non-scripted programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junoon (2008 TV series)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article has zero source. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 10:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Reality/non-scripted_programming: or to Annu Kapoor -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Thomaskantor. asilvering (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Jünger

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

Only source is a self published website anyone can edit. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A reasonable WP:ATD would be to redirect to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting listing for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom. No siginificant coverage in independent reliable sources found to indicate notability. The article itself only has a single line and a single source and cannot be expanded since there are no other sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few more sources when I clicked on Google books, but arguably they are significant coverage. Can somebody who reads German look at those? Bearian (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the book refs are all about different people, not this subject. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto Thomaskantor unless something more substantial is found. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut pie (disambiguation)

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

Delete per page creator. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G7: deletion requested by creator; no substantial content added by other users. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC) edited to add : deletion– dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 20:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Racist?

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

Doesn't appear to have proven notability aside from that Matt Walsh is involved. Only two references, both from the same website which is a social media aggregate and may not itself meet the criteria of a reliable source (and should probably carry a bias warning as owned by a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation, with the promo code Libtard to get 50% off to give you an idea). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be a few reliable sources discussing it including Hollywood Reporter and The Hill, possibly more, that was just a quick look. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The THR article is a pretty clear press release write-up (doesn't make it unreliable but it's not in itself significant coverage), and The Hill segment is really about the marketing stunt which I don't think really speaks to the notability of the film itself. This has a good chance of changing when it's actually released but on the coverage it currently has it'd be better suited to a couple of sentences on Walsh's page. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: release in 2 weeks and I think AfDs about films whose release is scheduled during or immediately after the AfD come either too late or too early. Feel free to consider this a procedural keep !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Hollywood Reporter coverage referenced above looks like WP:SIGCOV, not churnalism. (It appears to be based on the trailer plus additional reporting about the upcoming release.) There's also SIGCOV in the New York Post (not deprecated for entertainment news), commentary by a staff writer at The Mary Sue and at AwardsDaily. Together, this constitutes a pass of WP:NFILM. And as Mushy notes above, I'd expect additional coverage and reviews in the days ahead. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on current sources, fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nothing else to comment on here. CNC (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources that editors have flagged in this discussion per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given BEFORE doesn't apply to me as I'm not the nominator, I'll ignore this point. Based on NEXIST, granted Hoolwood Reporter is sigcov, whereas The Hill falls short. Citing WP:NYPOST as sigcov is otherwise short cited, clearly a film titled "Am I Racist" is political and therefore coverage is GUNREL. Regarding Mary Sue, an attack piece isn't exactly contributing much towards sigcov of the topic, but rather commentary on Matt Walsh himself. I'm otherwise not convinced AwardsDaily is RS, but could be convinced otherwise. This to me leaves only HR as the sigcov, which per policy, is not enough for NFILM on it's own. CNC (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. The only references in the article currently is a site reposting social media posts, people posting on twitter don't prove notability. The other articles mentioned, and that I could find, don't appear to provide enough for notability at the moment. If more appear after the premier then the situation may change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested to Delete based on the reasons stated -- essentially that as it stands, the only two citations don't prove notability (and I'd suggest are not from a reliable source) and that the other existing coverage doesn't appear to be significant.

The page has also bypassed approval in the first place and at least in my opinion would have failed it.

It might gain notability later, but pages typically wouldn't be approved on what might happen. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a procedural note: nominators of pages for deletion are by default considered tacitly !voting Delete. It is therefore not necessary for them to bold that word anywhere else on the page as it might pass for a double !vote, even though I am sure you did it in good faith. Please consider using italics. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkeruTomoe I see this appears to be your first AfD nomination, so I encourage you to read WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Notability is not based on the sourcing in the article at the time of nomination. It's also based on the existence of coverage that meets WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline. WP:BEFORE says it is incumbent on nominators to search for additional sources before nominating. Editors in this conversation are surfacing reliable source WP:SIGCOV, and you should consider those sources as the debate progresses. Pinging @Chaste Krassley and @CommunityNotesContributor who are also new to AfD. I also had a lot to learn when I first got active at AfD! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? new to AfD? With 15 years of WP experience, I understand the process thanks. CNC (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says your account was created 10 months ago and the stats say this is your 6th AfD. How would you expect anyone to think otherwise? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually check someone's user page, that's how. CNC (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize for reaching my conclusion before I read all of your user boxes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone wish to delete this entry... does anyone dispute its accuracy... or, is the reason merely a wish to censor certain ideas.

Wikipedia is developing a reputation for leftward bias in its published entries. Censorship, in any form, would burnish that growing reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:C80:2E60:4D8E:63B7:8CC4:91CB (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, basically per Mushy Yank. Notability is borderline based on the sources from StewdioMACK and Dclemens1971, so I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying. Dclemens1971's New York Post source should be avoided though; WP:NYPOST calls it "marginally reliable for entertainment coverage" and "unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics", and the article is tagged as politics. I removed some stuff sourced to a Twitter aggregator which seemed to fall on the wrong side of WP:BLP. Deletion should be avoided since this is a likely search term. If there is consensus not to keep the article, we should maintain a redirect to Matt Walsh (political commentator). hinnk (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON, no citations, barely even a stub with the amount of info honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is ongoing debate over whether the additional sources identified by the above commenters are significant enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines or whether they are routine coverage. Please address these sources (and the existence of any others) in any continued discussion as this is the key Wikipedia policy issue that will determine the article's inclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view remains to delete (or at least draftify) with only one appropriate source listed.

I'd agree with hinnk's view on the sources, with Twitchy and New York Post not being acceptable sources (NYP as only marginally reliable and a specific mention that it's unreliable for politics has me considering it unreliable for this article, though this is subjective).

I'd not consider The Mary Sue article reliable or relevant in this context. It barely mentions the documentary itself, being more an attack on Matt Walsh, so isn't much of a source for this article.

I don't see any immediate issue with The Hollywood Reporter, though searching the reliable sources noticeboard doesn't show a consensus on it (listed once as far as I can see, no response). I wouldn't consider the article on it substantial coverage though, as it looks like a press release spin more than anything.

Edit: I see a a commenter has also added in Megyn Kelly as a source since, but I'd question if this website counts as reliable. Looks like she's formerly of Fox News which isn't a great starting point as it's unreliable for politics and noted as having concerns generally too according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources. She's also publicly made the false claim that Imane Khelif is male which doesn't speak well to her reliabilityDarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean “the noticeboard doesn’t show a consensus on it”??? Did you even search for it? The Hollywood Reporter is listed as a perennially reliable source; see WP:THR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is mainstream coverage and it is notable due to the fact that is will be released nationwide in movie theaters. --rogerd (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many RS cover the film from a quick Google search. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Dclemens1971. The film *does* seem to have WP:NFILM coverage, especially even prior to its nationwide theatrical release. I think that as an upcoming film, it is definitely notable for its stage in production, but would consider voting against it if it was released to crickets & no more SIGCOV following it. EytanMelech (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this qualifies for WP:NF inclusion. How much WP:Before was really done here? As far as all general guidelines are concerned and wiki-policy, this film is a strong keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is obviously notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.250.232 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now this article has 5 sources, including the one I added as an attributed opinion. I'm not sure on the reliability of Megyn Kelly, but it definitely appears to be pushing some sort of agenda, so its not promising in terms of reliability. At best I'd see this article being draftified as per WP:TOOSOON. Once it releases I'd definitely see more reliable sources cropping up. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 12:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see this film being discussed in various sources before it is even released - [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Given that there will certainly be more coverage once released in a few days (the subject matter will at least guarantee coverage in certain sources), I don't see any issue with notability. Hzh (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to just enough WP:SIGCOV (particularly from reviewing the citations posted above by User:Hzh) to pass WP:NFILM. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Hzh and others. McRandy1958 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Forbes (musician)

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

Biography of a recently-deceased composer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim here is that he composed the theme music for a TV show, which would be fine if the article were reliably sourced -- but except for one obituary in Billboard (which isn't dedicated solely to him, but just blurbs him as one of several recent deaths in music), this is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: directory entries on IMDb and Discogs.com, his paid-inclusion death notice from the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, a podcast, a WordPress blog and a Substack newsletter.
And a WP:BEFORE search for better sources also turned up dry: searching for just Harry Forbes only got me unrelated hits for different people, such as a military veteran and a hockey coach, while searching for Harry Forbes composer or Harry Forbes Magic Shadows both found absolutely zilch.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Billboard obituary is something, but that's all I could find. A podcast called Toronto Mike remembers Forbes, but that's still not a RS. Just not enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani

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

The article attempts to be a WP:SPINOFF from Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg but nothing that is mentioned here cannot be there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, Olympics, Iran, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added content and WP:RS that supports the article. This article is specific to not only an event within Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg, but also the prior tournament, the background and events surrounding the bout including the censorship, as well as reactions. Having all of this information placed within the Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg article is unbefitting and WP:UNDUE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources available are enough to have notability. As with any highly trending event at the Olympics, they should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary WP:CFORK. The match is notworthy of a standalone page and any descent info can be easily be added to Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it would be WP:UNDUE to redirect/delete it as the article isn't just about the match, but also includes the prior match, the reactions, aftermath, censorship, etc., and the article is noteworthy with WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK, all of the content can be covered adequately elsewhere. Of the text in the article:

The fact that it's a rematch of a 2020 match is somewhat trivial
Kiani won the silver medal, the latter being the first for an Iranian woman at the Olympics, surpassing Alizadeh's 2016 bronze feat can be mentioned at her article and/or Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics
While Kiani competed for the Iranian team, Alizadeh competed for the Bulgarian team after having represented the Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2016 Summer Olympics where she became the first Iranian female medalist at the Olympics. can be covered in Kiani's article and the relevant "Team X at the Y Summer Olympics" articles.
Alizadeh became Bulgaria's first-ever taekwondo competitor at the Olympics, and won Bulgaria's first medal in Olympic taekwondo can be mentioned at Bulgaria at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
"Aftermath" section can be mentioned in either the event article, this can be added to Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

In summary, none of this content needs a separate spinoff article for one match. And there is no one sensible merge target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent summation by Joseph2302. I do believe this does not deserve its own WP article as is seems like WP:NOTNEWS. I do think there's material there that can be put into existing articles--especially since they're both individually notable. I'm just not sure where the best fit is for all the information. Papaursa (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Papaursa puts it well, this falls mostly into the WP:NOTNEWS category. There's content which can be dispersed but not enough evidence of GNG level notability for a standalone article. Aspirex (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The "keep" arguments have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 05:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djarum

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Advert article. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in Vice, Business Daily Africa, Singaporean Business Times, The Jakarta Globe, Sport in Society, and a book published by University of California Press (to name a few) about the company and its impact on the economy of Indonesia and its CSR activities targeting youth groups. WP:DINC. Primary sources should be replaced with secondary ones and puffery can and should be removed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed most of the puffery and added more secondary sources that establish sigcov. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Many reliable sources have been added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2024–present)

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

Sorry if I am reviving a discussion that has been finished in the past. But all the information is easily available in both List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (simply sort) and List of Liberal Democrat MPs. I can't really imagine a need for a subset of these. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this list as a continuation of the series: List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2005–2010), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2010–2015), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2015–2017), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–2019) and List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2019–2024). Moondragon21 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is also List of United Kingdom Conservative MPs (2024–present), List of United Kingdom Conservative MPs (2010–2015), List of United Kingdom Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs (2005–2010), List of United Kingdom Labour MPs (2005–2010), List of National Liberal Party (UK, 1931) MPs, List of Scottish National Party MPs (2005–2010) and List of Scottish National Party MPs (2010–2015). It seems like many of these lists could be deleted for the same reason. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now pending a broader discussion about all the lists identified by Esolo50002 and Moondragon21. It makes no sense to treat one in isolation to the whole set. Thryduulf (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf! I only have experience with nominating individual articles. With starting a broader discussion, do you mean nominating all of them, or discussing it on another discussion page? Thanks in advance!

I also realised the reasoning above does not currently apply to all pages Moondragon21 and Esolo50002 mention. List of United Kingdom Labour MPs (2005–2010) for example gives information that is not in List of MPs elected in the 2005 United Kingdom general election (and the latter is also not sortable, so it's harder to get this subset). They could be merged in the future, but that would require changes. Dajasj (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election is sortable by party and List of Liberal Democrat MPs is sortable by year, so I'm baffled as to the point of this page, as well as the above lists. We certainly don't need to duplicate List of current members of the United States House of Representatives with additional articles for just the Democrats or Republicans either. Reywas92^Talk 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Parade railway station

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

No evidence of any notability found online, single source doesn't give any notability either. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Australia. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>> Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line Djflem (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't sure about a single thing. "It was probably located in the suburb of Ottoway, South Australia." "It is unclear when the station opened." "There is no longer any trace of the station." If you can't say a single verifiable fact about a subject, it should not have an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line. It is absolutely verifiable that this station existed, and that passenger services ceased as recently as 1987 making it unambiguously a plausible search term. While it's unlikely (but not impossible) there will be many in-depth sources about it, there being no sources at all for things like the location is implausible - it's just that they will be mostly offline (the 1980s is too late to out-of-copyright content online and too early to have born-digital content). In situations like this the best we can do for readers is to redirect the title to coverage on a broader article, which in this case is the article about the railway line. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that it should be merged otherwise, deleteNatalieTT (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza Bibilashvili

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

Although references have been added since draftification, this is a disputed draftification. I am mindful that AfD is not cleanup. This mantra is used often during AfDs where poorly written and/or referenced articles appear here, yet AfD often triggers such a cleanup. Seee WP:HEY. Normally I would have sent this back to Draft space, but WP:DRAFTIFY prohibits this under these circumstances. I would have done so because the subject appears notable, though this requires in depth checking. But I have to do this here. My nomination is to draftify which a piece of firm advice to the creating editor to request a review from an uninvolved editor, probably an AFC reviewer (noting that AFC is not compulsory) before it is moved again to mainspace. This nomination is made to give them a relaxed environment to make the necessary edits, rather than rushing against the seven day AfD deadline. I mentioned WP:HEY before. editors feeling this has happened should ping me, and, if I agree, I will withdraw the nomination, which, under certain restricted circumstances, will be able to be closed to keep the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am author of article. Would be grateful if concrete grounds for deletion will be explained . I understand that some references are leaading to websites related to person about whom article is, but in these cases there are simply no other sources to reference and I tryed to add as many reference as possible. Please tak into account size of Georgian web, which is small and we have not too many internet sources to rely on. Thank you. Ggotua (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ggotua Please note that I have asked for the article's return to Draft: space, believing it to be premature for it to be in mainspace. Your work is incomplete, references are malformed, the article suffers from external links in the body of the article.

Moving back to Daft space will give you the time to perform improvement tasks in peace and quiet.

To be clear, I am not of the opinion so far that this should face deletion. Other people coming here may disagree. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Georgia (country). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is fine if the sources are cleaned up, article is a bit messy it seems to show notability, with proper sourcing of course. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the subject is biographically notable. It focuses on what the subject and his associates say about him, rather than what third parties say about him, and has a promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brand & Co.

AfDs for this article:

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

This promotional article was refunded after soft deletion with a promise from a quickie-autoconfirmed SPA that "I have gathered a few new sources to support the article." However, a week later, the article is untouched, and this subject still fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of primary sources, promotional fluff, sponsored content, trivial mentions, user-generated content, interviews, and churnalism -- none of it WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article has not improved since the last nomination. The sources are mostly sponsored articles plus an interview and a blog post. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello. I apologize for the very delayed response. There was an unexpected delay on my end, and I forgot to update the page as mentioned. I have just updated LOVE BRAND & Co. with additional references as promised. Please check it, and hopefully, you can move it to the draftspace instead of deleting it. Thank you. QuincKristoffer (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources are absolutely not WP:SIGCOV. A "Forbes contributor" blog post is not a reliable source, and the other three added sources (Grazia Daily, the Independent and Evening Standard) are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this brand in lists of capsule product reviews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some more sources andd although at this point I make no comment about whether they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I hope we can at least be consistent in our approach to evaluating sources that meet GNG/NCORP.

Kensington Mums website has extensive information on the background to the company and says "Since day one, LOVE BRAND & Co. has been donating a percentage of revenue – not profits to protecting the natural world. Every year, LOVE BRAND & Co. supports and works closely with remarkable conservation charities and foundations, helping ensure the survival of some of the most vulnerable species and habitats on earth." and "The collections are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The brand has grown into a global lifestyle brand..."
Drapers website also provides information on the company and their prospects and says "Positing a branded offer on making a link with charity has a relatively long history for brands, but an entire shop founded on the notion of giving a portion of the sales to selected causes is more unusual. To make this proposition viable, ticket prices have to be high - operating costs in this part of London tend to be on the high side and if 5% of the value of sales is going to charities, then volume may also have to form part of the equation."
This in Tempus Magazine says "Since its launch in 2010, Love Brand has become the go-to summer lifestyle brand for the discerning male shopper, drawn as much by its clever, colourful prints and comfortable fit as its strong eco credentials. The collections, which include classic linen shirts, T-shirts, shorts and trousers, are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The label’s best-selling swim shorts (for men and boys) are made entirely from recycled plastic."
This in FashionBeans says "The founding concept of the brand, which was launched in 2011, was to deliver “fashion for the love of elephants”. With this motto in mind, not only does Love Brand & Co. offer luxury beachwear to fashionable men, but the brand also donates 5% of its sales to elephant conservation, supporting select elephant charities: Elephant Family, The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust and Tusk Trust."
This written by Editorial Staff of Authority Magazine says "Founded by Rose and Oliver Tomalin, Love Brand & Co. is a sustainable luxury resort and swimwear brand that not only creates exceptional, stylish garments but also seeks to protect the environment. A certified B-Corp that has since day one been donating 1% of revenue, not profit, to charities around the world and protecting an amazing array of endangered species and wild landscapes, Love Brand & Co. has been redefining beachwear with a greater purpose."
[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/best-sustainable-fashion-brands-put-154733541.html This in the Evening Standard" says "Love Brand & Co. was founded by Oliver Tomalin in 2010 with a commitment to protecting endangered and vulnerable wildlife. Members of 1% For The Planet, the brand donates a percentage of annual net revenue to fund worldwide projects that promote human-wildlife coexistance, as well as donating products to communities as a gesture of thanks for their important role in ensuring a future for endagered wildlife - at the moment, they’re working with families in the Assam region in India who help with elephant conservation."

The above is extensive SIGCOV coverage in reliable sources which go beyond trivial mentions. Although some of the articles are based on interviews, they also contain sufficient content which does not appear in quotes. My initial thoughts are that none of these meet GNG/NCORP but perhaps others can check. HighKing 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing Quick comments:

KensingtonMums is a blog and thus a WP:SPS; not reliable.
Drapers is a fashion industry WP:TRADES publication, which are generally not considered sufficiently independent.
The Tempus source is WP:INTERVIEW-based and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
As a product review FashionBeans appears to offer WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS.
The Authority Magazine link is dead and not archived so I can't review it.
The Evening Standard link is a mention in a longer list, not WP:SIGCOV

Thus I agree with you, with one exception, these do not contribute to WP:NCORP, the governing standard -- we need more to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry, was about to go away and in hindsight I shouldn't have posted those links without spending some time looking at them in more detail. (I can access the Authority Magazine link still so I'm not sure what the issue is). But they're all junk. All fail GNG/WP:NCORP, apologies for wasting time. HighKing 19:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The user who requested refund and has added material to the page has now disclosed receiving payments for this editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is PROMO. The paid editing, the SPI and the lack of any kind of decent coverage... I don't see RS, other than the Independent that talks about shirts, that we could use to build an article. I don't find anything that isn't an interview with the founder or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School

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

Other than some passing mentions, there is no coverage about this primary school. There are million schools like this in Bangladesh, we don’t create article just because it exists. The school fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument for why it should be deleted has several problems, You said "There are milion schools like this in Bangladesh'', This is factually incorrect because there are about 5 to 8 times less schools in Bangladesh than you said, Even though the report is 3 years old, not many instituitions have been created in just 3 years. And also, It would be grammatically correct, if you said ''there are millions of schools like this one in Bangladesh,'' I think you forgot to add s to article. I also have spelling problems and also problems in grammar, The spelling and issues in grammar are not really the problem, Contradictions are the problem. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-There are many of them in Bangladesh. It can be said that there is in every village. It has no significance. মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Most pages in fact, 50% of all pages about schools need to be deleted then, There are several sources talking about the instituition and about it. There are not just passing mentions, Not every instituition will get significant coverage, Yes, just because a school exists does not always mean, It should get it's own page. That is correct. However some schools get attention from Independent and Non-Independent Newspapers, News Portals and Websites, Those are the ones that I am creating now, I might have made mistakes in the past, However I now kind of understand. And, in my opinion, this system sucks, If a page gets deleted, and then the topic gets high attention and coverage from many sources, It will still be deleted because It has some similiarity of the page when It was previously deleted. There are not milions of schools in Bangladesh, That is factually incorrect, You are just saying factually incorrect stuff and try to make sense, Just because you have a high edit count, and there is less sources of a instituition than others does not mean It will be deleted, Instead of constantly nominating pages for deletion, It is better to find sources, Improving the page and if unable to find any, then it makes sense to nominate it for deletion. I will try to find sources about the instituition. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources (see WP:SIGCOV) rather than adding 17 passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all citations just mention the name, Some citations do provide some other information, that is why I put citations that just mentions the school next to name or other text. There are thousands of pages with citations that just mention the name and nothing else that remains and does not get nominated with, and those pages are seen by hundreds or even thousands, yet no nominations, Meanwhile pages like this one have information get nominated for deletion, despite giving more information than just the name. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are passing mentions, directory listings, or talks about a teacher dies in road accident. As i mentioned above, there is zero WP:SIGCOV about this school. Most of them are also unreliable. Please provide sources that are SIGCOV and reliable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are unreliable? Ok, and there are some passing mentions and articles about a teacher who unfortunately died in a road accident, However there is more than that, Sure I will try to provide more information. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article appears to be ref-bombed in its opening sentence: 17 references about its name, that it is a school, and where it is. I cannot read Bengali so not sure how in-depth these refs are, and if they should be supporting other information about the institution in an expanded text. If not, I don't see how it meets WP:ORGCRIT (to support WP:NSCHOOL) nor WP:GNG. I cannot find any good secondary source coverage myself. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you are trying to say.
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an absurd article; any mention of the school has been referenced in the article, from a government file to Facebook. 17 references were used to write four sentences, and 12 entries were made in the see also section. Poor article and zero claims or evidence of notability. A run-of-the-mill primary (elementary) school in rural Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftabuzzaman, I just realized, that you were right. This page should not exist in the Encyclopedia. I should not have created this page. Sorry for the horrible responses. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDMT Prabhavati Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Odisha. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Even there's only primary sources, that warrants an own article about the school. So, it's not a valid reason for deletion. Further please see the google reviews to see it's existence Veejs7er (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Secondary schools were once inherently notable, and many articles were created on that basis. That changed a few years ago. Schools must now pass WP:NSCHOOL. Existence is not sufficient. There must be notability. This is irrespective of the date the article was created 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. This basic rule requires that “multiple” sources exist - at least 2 or 3. In fact, having only one source is equivalent to original research, which we’ve never, ever published, because we are not a primary source, and in 2024 everyone knows that. Existence is not enough: there are rules to avoid chaos. I’m a bit more lax in my own standards, but even under those, I’d delete this page. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Prydryk

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no relevance to being on Wikipedia. 181.197.42.150 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dyer (poker player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: purely promotional and very irrelevant. Alon9393 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Duek

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, no structure, no good writing. Quick deletion should have been requested. Alon9393 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Wynne

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

~~Cannot find any WP:RS about the person Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep British Film Institute does look like a reliable source, and did have a significant screen career, there were several red links before this article was created. PatGallacher (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP: NACTOR met, with a lead role in Clegg and a role in the main cast in Night After Night After Night, at least. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has had significant roles in TV and film as mentioned above. Also had a part in a music video for a former pop star. Further research shows he studied at RADA and had a career in theatre in the West End and USA. 2A00:23C6:D88E:8901:60B3:747C:D24F:D539 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Clegg (film), Night After Night After Night and Softly, Softly (TV series). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn British Institute sources plus the many main indicates notability Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs)
Redirect to Clegg (film). Was about to close this as withdrawn, but I don't fully grasp the opinions above, as the sourcing situation looks very dire to me. BFI is just a fact sheet and is not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khasdour

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

I searched Google Scholar but I could not find any reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Loewstisch (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The only keep argument does not address the reason for deletion. There is not clear consensus for a redirect, but if a new consensus emerges to create a redirect, there is no problem with creating one. Malinaccier (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1975 in Turkish television

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

Uncited and already covered in Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not enough content for a standalone article and no suitable redirect target. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issue with keeping a stub. Orientls (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but are there other articles for any other year regarding this topic? I did not find them.....so, navigation-wise, it’s a bit awkward. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally useless and do not redirect. A redirection would inhibit the creation of an actual article, which is a possible, but would need a deep dive into Turkish physical newspapers. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four strategic communications firms

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

The ONLY news source for this article is the Wikipedia article indexed on Google. WP:BEFORE check shows nothing for this particular term to describe these communication firms (which in themselves appear notable). However, this title of "big four" applies only to the big four accounting firms. The first fence of this article contends "Similar to the "Big Four" accounting firms and the "Magic Circle" law firms, a group of elite corporate advisory and public relations firms has emerged as the global leaders and go-to advisors for major corporations". There is no source for this, and it appears to be the primary indicator of importance for the subject. Most of the article is unsourced, and I cannot find anything to back up any significant claim made. I also cannot find any source referring to these firms in this way. The term appears made up or unsubstantiated - I feel this almost but not quite qualifies for Speedy Delete criteria A11... — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Advertising, Companies, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable based on sources and concept/term itself is WP:OR Chaste Krassley (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sourcing and in-depth analysis or coverage of the topic. WP:TOOSOON. The editing spirit (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brain rot

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

This article shouldn't be here because it is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICT AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 4.39.220.106 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may be get new encyclopedic content in the future since this is an ongoing phenomenon, like memes did Carel3DS (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is remit for more information about brain rot and its influence on Gen Z culture and, expanding beyond the current stub article as a mere dictionary-esque definition. It's been cited in The New Yorker and NYT this summer and I would be interested in working to build out this article.WeeMungo (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as currently exists has little specific encyclopedic value, but the concept is an important pop-cultural descriptor of a present societal development. And we have an article for enshittification, after all. This concept is analogous, and, at this point in that page's life cycle, it was similarly sparse. Now it's a pretty good article. Rework, but don't delete. Bruhpedia (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally just content that people think is bad 4.39.220.106 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has a lot of room for expansion and the concept as a whole ties into a lot of Gen Z internet culture. It shouldn't be a simple dictionary definition in the first place. Nightheight (talk|tribs) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is goofy, but it's gotten a lot of coverage over the past year:

Gunnell, Marshall (Apr 14, 2023). "Doom scrolling is giving you brain rot". PCWorld. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Staff, Newport Institute (2024-01-10). "Brain Rot: The Impact on Young Adult Mental Health". Newport Institute. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Venkatraman, Sakshi (2024-08-10). "Parents and Gen Alpha kids are having unintelligible convos because of 'brainrot' language". NBC News. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Koenig, Angela (2024-09-04). "It's not you: Gen Alpha's slang is really 'Ohio'". UC News. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
North, Anna (2024-09-05). "iPad kids speak up". Vox. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
Roy, Jessica (2024-08-16). "'Brainrot' Is the New Online Affliction - The New York Times". New York Times. Retrieved 2024-09-11.

I don't see a broader topic on Wikipedia for a merge yet, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term "brain rot" is a common internet slang nowadays and other internet slang such as "rizz" and "fanum tax" both currently have Wikipedia articles about them. Deleting the page for "brain rot" is unreasonable due to the fact that other Wikipedia pages about brainrot exist. 19:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.251.2 (talk)
Keep or Merge to Glossary of Internet-related terms or List of Generation Z slang. While I believe this meets WP:GNG, at the end of the day, I don't think there's enough content to justify an article beyond a paragraph for this topic since it's mostly just a word. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Johari

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Content is missing and it is not encyclopedic. Alon9393 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Soto

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about an artist, and added two references. I cannot see significant coverage of him, however, and do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. His own website is down. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV and sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This largely unsourced, semi-promotional article on an artist does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. He is a prolific artist, and probably a great teacher, but he is not Wiki-notable per WP criteria. It seems to be either an autobiography or edited by SPAs and IP-hoppers very close to the artist as the majority of the article claims are unsourced and a BEFORE search does not reveal sources that back up the content. Netherzone (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Godbole

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

Non-notable CEO of a company, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV,sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per me its paas the notability but yes there reference issue but it can be stay Reo trish (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I sincerely believe that the entry is insufficient. It does not have enough sources or encyclopedic context. Alon9393 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronical place

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

Obscure astrology term, WP:NOTDICT. Two of the three references are on the word "acronical", one of which is a blog. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just have a Glossary of astrology or something? You can't say a lot about a lot of these things but the terms themselves are discussed and it would be helpful for trying to sort out what is what in the sea of new age nonsense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a Glossary of astrology now. Do you want this article Redirected or Merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor in the encyclopedic development, perhaps at another time they will develop it better, for the moment delete, auto blog is not allowed. Alon9393 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Karatedo Shito-Ryu International Renshikan

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

Non-notable martial arts organization. The only two sources are from the subject's website. Good faith google search can't seem to give any independent or significant coverage from reliable sources. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Martial arts, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by itself doesn't have independent sources. Fulmard (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a rudimentary search in Japanese and could not find anything. Please ping me if anything is found. DCsansei (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage and the article has none. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDid not find significant independent coverage, only passing mentions in martial arts academy indexes and advertising content belonging to the organization in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HC226 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vikas Gupta#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V The Serial

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 07:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikas Gupta#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, don't create an article and the same day bring it to AFD to get more opinions on how it should be approved or what should be done with it. This is a misuse of the AFD process which is to consider whether an article should be deleted. If the nominator wants their article deleted, just tag it CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan (singer)

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

I nominate this article to debate whether to keep it or eliminate it, due to a transfer to the draft, for my opinion the article maintains relevance and a large number of independent sources that prove its notoriety, if improvements need to be made, they can also be made. In addition, the singer has participated in a very concert With extensive media impact in Pakistan, in 2023, Hannan appears on the list of the most played artists on music platforms. Alon9393 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recreating a BLP shortly after it was Draftified is not only unjustified but also goes against P&Gs. And then, nominating one's own creation for deletion and seeking input from others is a misuse of the AfD process. This is not how AfD is supposed to work. Ideally, this AFD should be procedurally closed. But fwiw, the subject fails to meets the WP:NSINGER as well GNG, so this BLP should either be deleted or at the very least, draftify for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alon9393, Not sure why you've canvassed me here but I have no interest in this article or the person so as such have no opinion on this nomination, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't see a rebuttal of the evaluation of souces here so I need to close this as Delete. If the article creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know but know that if you simply move it back to main space without an AFC approval, it will be deleted per CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College

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

The cited sources are two press releases (Sylheter Dak and Daily Jalalabad), a list of the ~60 schools operated by the army, a job posting, and the school website. Searches in English and Bengali found a few primary source breaking news stories, generally of the form "so-and-so, a student at Jalalabad Cantonment English School and College",[11] but no independent, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the school itself. Therefore does not meet WP:NSCHOOL and should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce Seriously? No independent sources or secondary containing significant coverage? Look again and see the citations and what should i attempt to do. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom; it is a well-reasoned and convincing argument.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if that is what you think, However It is better to attempt to find sources in both English and Bengali then if you cannot find, Please check if the citations has enough to keep the page on Wikipedia or not. Keep because new edits has been added with sources, If sources are unreliable or there is some kind of good response that you have, you can reply. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 4th edit to this article was this nomination for deletion and since then, there has been a lot of editing to it. It might be helpful to review the article again and see if useful sources have been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keep because the school does have some coverage, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Searches in English and Bengali do include more citations than what you said, It does not always say student at so and so. If you have a proper argument, reply. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the school is notable and has coverage. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, I struck one of your votes as you can't vote twice in an AFD discussion. Saurabh^{Talk} 19:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce No, Searches in English and Bengali do include more citations than what you said, It does not always say student at so and so. If you have a proper argument, Make sure to reply. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was nominated, it has been edited 50 times by the author, but there has been no improvement. There are six new sources:
- Ajker Patrika - primary source, a passing mention in a list of 36 schools.
- Prothom Alo - primary source, "Rafihat Saleh Chowdhury, a student of Jalalabad Cantonment English School and College, won ..." Precisely the sort of problematic source described in the nomination. It contains zero coverage of the school itself.
- Sylheter Dak - press release (no byline, "has achieved glorious success as usual" ... "campus erupted with the unbridled cheers of students and parents", etc.) If you don't read Bengali, Google translate renders "-বিজ্ঞপ্তি" as "-Advertisement".
- The Daily Sylheter Shomoy #1 - press release, a copy of the Daily Jalalabad source mentioned in the nomination and since removed ("has achieved glorious success as always" ... "the students and parents broke the barrage and cheered the campus" ... "authorities are always determined to maintain the overall quality of the organization").
- The Daily Sylheter Shomoy #2 - Reads like an ISPR press release. No byline, the same text appears at [12] If I'm mistaken about it being a press release, it's still only a primary source, so does not help establish notability per WP:SIRS. Moreover the publisher has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking.
- Sohopathi - self-published, no reputation for accuracy or fact checking, indiscriminate because it attempts to list every school in Bangladesh.

Do not confuse quantity with quality. The pile is bigger, but with zero independent, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the school itself, it's still a pile that shouldn't be a stand alone article in the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been Improvement.
Ok, Sure, there are some passing mentions.
What do you define as significant coverage and Independent, Secondary sources?
Fact-Checking? Sure.

BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ORGCRIT you can find detailed definitions, along with examples, of all the terms in the phrase "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked what do you define it as. I asked for your opinion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep-It is a higher secondary educational institution. মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান: That was a widely accepted rationale for keeping secondary schools (then called WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) until 2017. However, the RfC on secondary school notability overturned that practice and determined that all schools (including higher secondary ones) are not presumed to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia simply because they exist, they must be proven to be notable. That's why you shouldn't have ignored reviewer DoubleGrazing's advice and moved your own creation, Amla Sadarpur Secondary School from draft to main space, where it is likely to be deleted if the sourcing can't be improved. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source analysis following the relisting is correct, and the nom still holds. No evidence of notability per WP:ORG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Root

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

Despite having nine books to his name, I can't find evidence that any of them pass WP:NBOOK, and thus I don't think this is a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I checked Kirkus, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, plus some general searches for his name and some book titles, and only found four total reviews (one each for four books). I didn't find biographical coverage for WP:NBIO either. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very weak, without notable and independent trajectory. Alon9393 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Hershcovich

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

I cannot find independent sources with significant coverage suitable to meet WP:NBASIC, and I cannot find evidence to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPROF. I have looked under both the article name and "Arie Hershkowitz", the name given on the CV in reference 1. Mgp28 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Israel. Mgp28 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is אריה הרשקוביץ. Most of his research is under Arie Herscovici, with other sources under Arie Hershcovich and Arie Hershkowitz. אריה has many spellings as well but hopefully that part is more consistent for this Arie. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Using "Arie Herscovici" I'm still not seeing enough independent coverage to make me think the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. An attempt at using his name in Hebrew with Google Translate seemed to bring up news stories about people with the same name who are not him, but I will be interested to know if there are sources in Hebrew that show notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are fairly common. Hershkowitz is the status quo name in English, French, and German. Herșcovici is the Romanian spelling. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom I cannot find enough evidence to support notability under WP:NPROF. If there is more then please add it quickly to the article (as against just here). Ldm1954 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete or move to the draft, is not notable for the moment and fails in the relevance of the encyclopedic development. Alon9393 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ which does not preclude a continued merger discussion on the Talk. Star Mississippi 03:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of King Kong amusement park attractions

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

Per WP:LISTN, this isn't a notable enough subject to have a list article about. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Amusement parks. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, perhaps this can be converted back into a disambiguation page, as was the case before 2010. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough entries with links their own articles, to make it a valid navigational list. List articles are more useful than categories since they allow more information, helping people find what they want easier. Perhaps make an article with all the entries from Category:Amusement rides based on film franchises, and merge this one to it. Dream Focus 01:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if NLIST isn't met, which I am not necessarily conceding, it can survive as a navigational aid or disambiguation page, which is a perfectly fine ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is too small. We should see where it can be merged. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. As a list, this article just doesn't really work due to a lack of significant coverage on this subject, but this is admittedly a useful directory page for those interested in searching about this topic. I'd support a disambiguation so it can better fulfill its purpose, as its current status just doesn't work well as a list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or disambiguate per Pokelego999. This could fit nicely at a section of King Kong, but a short navigational aid is the best way to frame this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not notable enough, plus the list is too small. Should consider merging.

Priscilladfb16 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section on the King Kong page, preferably in prose. It's useful information, but such a short list doesn't need its own page. 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the article is merged, it would probably be better suited to a sub-article such as King Kong (franchise) or King Kong in popular culture. Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this as a list, just provide a bit more context as to the time frames when these each started and their licensing arrangements, and any relationships between them. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely an inferior duplication of King Kong (franchise)#Theme park rides. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogio Tibay

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

Stub bio of an inventor sourced only to a patent. I don’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, just Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GNews, GSearch and GBook searches didn't turn up any reliable references. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable sources and insufficient information to establish notability.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable patent filer; orphaned article. Doesn't pass BIO or GNG.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Shawn Klein

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

This is an author of three books and many short stories, but I can't find evidence that any of the books passes WP:NBOOK, with at most one RS review each. (Kirkus for And The Dead Shall Live and Sherlock Mendelson; I'm not sure about IndieReader but it's the best we get for The Money). The best claim to notability via awards appears to be two nominations (not wins) for the Pushcart Prize for two short stories. I don't think this is sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR and I haven't been able to find better sourcing for WP:NBIO. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not encyclopedic. Alon9393 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 05:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Flame

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has been created and deleted twice before. Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Little if any additional notability since the last time it was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019 timeline of the Somali Civil War without prejudice against a selective merge. With only one Keep view after 25 days, it's clear consensus is against having this as a standalone page, and no valid objections raised against redirecting it. Owen× ☎ 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asasey Hotel attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT no lasting coverage. Cannot find any coverage of the event after July except for trivial one line mentions in articles discussing other attacks. Closest thing I could find was this: https://www.kormeeraha.com/2021/03/12/canadian-school-renamed-after-hodan-nalayeh/ but it is about a victim more than the attack.

Unfortunately hotel attacks are a common incident in Somalia and just aren't very notable. Could be merged into Hodan Nalayeh, al-Shabaab, or the Somali civil war Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Somalia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2019 timeline of the Somali Civil War. Or redirect, it's already mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Hotel attacks are not a common incident in Somalia just as school shootings are not in the United States, despite what is suggested from news coverage. An attack in which 25 people are killed is not WP:ROUTINE and there was international news coverage of the attack in global RS including FT, NYT, CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, etc. More than enough coverage to establish WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:GNG for WP:NEVENT. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg But not WP:SUSTAINED which is one of the more important aspects in WP:NEVENT. There is nothing after a month. Death toll is not notability, plenty of even higher casualty attacks are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three participants and three different outcomes proposed, the definition of No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with merging to the timeline article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought up. @PARAKANYAA:: articles are not required to meet GNG and every applicable SNG but GNG or any applicable SNG. This doesn't have lasting consequences, but it does have plenty of coverage in reliable sources.Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Delete per replies: I'd forgotten about the whole For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources bit. — Alien333 ( what I did[reply]
why I did it wrong ) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states sources should be secondary. All the sourcing appears to be primary sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333 That is not what NEVENT is. NEVENT is meant to distinguish/help to distinguish events that may suffer from WP:PRIMARYNEWS (since, initially, that's going to be all of the sources). All of the sources here are primary and therefore none contribute to GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, every single passing events that blows up in the media for two days has "plenty of coverage in reliable sources"; but we clearly don't have an article on every crime that's ever happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a news story. There is no long-term coverage in secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Longhornsg are all from the time of the event. No WP:LASTING effect to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:PARAKANYAA, you have voiced other opinions here. Are you no longer arguing for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still arguing for a merge/redirect since it's part of the greater event and was discussed within that context. I do not think it is notable outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just about evenly divided between editors arguing for Deletion and those would be okay with a Merge. I didn't want to relist for a third time but I'd prefer not closing this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication the requested input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Ciganlija

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

Mainly uncited and seemingly vandalised. Perhaps it could be merged in to create a "neighborhoods of Belgrade" article, as, seemingly after 7 years being marked with onesource, it still remains with only one source. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we need more sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Боки ☎ ✎ 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After a little more reading, I think this may not even pass WP:GNG, searching for the town has on several occasions not brought any results for me. I am still of the belief a merge with a more general "Neighborhoods of Belgrade" could be and should be the way forward as it allows this article to still exist as a redirect, therefore not affecting anything that links here, and also allows for bigger and smaller towns to be on Wikipedia as the neighborhoods are notable as a group, yet probably not individually.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can editor provide new sources that provide SIGCOV that can help substantiate a Keep argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

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

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgimo

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

non notable worm, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohmini.A

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

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hayford Peirce as a viable ATD to which no one has disagreed Star Mississippi 02:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Park (novel)

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

Doesn't meet NBOOK. The book is also published under the title The Thirteenth Majestral. I have not been able to find any reviews for either title through JSTOR, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, ProQuest, Newspaper Archive, or Google News. I didn't even find a book listing on ISFDB. I suggest redirecting to the the author, Hayford Peirce. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hayford Peirce. There's about a paragraph in the September 18 1994 issue of the Arizona Daily Star but it doesn't say all too much, not a "review" (just commenting on the name change and Jurassic Park stuff). There's also this which confuses me - is this giving commentary on a location in the book? I have no idea why it's namedropped. Included here but not sigcov. It was translated into Italian but I can't find any sources under the translated name either (L'impero dei dinosauri). PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilu Ja'afaru

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

As far as I can tell, this is a minor government official. The only sources with significant coverage I could find online were written by the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to see if I can find sources but I couldn’t find something substantial. Subject does not meet the general notability criteria or any subject-specific notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans 10:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Džundev

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

Diplomat, so not automatically notable. Tagged for notability for 9 years (which is how I found it). I can't find any sources but primary or non-significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it's not expanded nor added sources. Xegma(talk) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits is not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomats, including ambassadors, are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC. There's no evidence this subject does. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination was the 16th edit done by the user, who should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia community before nominating long-standing articles for deletion, and in doing so, evoking the behaviour of previous users with similar nominations. There is no need to entertain a discussion on such flimsy grounds as is presented here. For a characater known worldwide for decades, WP:SNOW comes to mind if you need another reason. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Doing A WP:BEFORE Turned up nothing about the character in capacity, heck Most of the Information Is About the show, Not the character. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The character is the show, and the show is all about the character. Not sure what you mean, but the whole article is about the character. And if you click on any of the "Find sources", you will discover a lot more. — Maile (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Kayser

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

Completely unreferenced since creation and tagging in 2016. Fails WP:GNG. Sources I found were about a different Hans Kayser (b Buchau, Württemberg, April 1, 1891; d Bolligen, nr Berne, April 14, 1964) who was an academic and writer. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any RS online. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The book sources appear to be for the other guy. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per norm -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. See other AFDs by this editor for rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Peanut

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

Non-notable advertising character which can easily be redirected to the product or organization. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are quite enough sources in the article, including this New York Times article and this Adweek article, as well as the books What a Character! 20th Century American Advertising Icons and A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. An obviously notable advertising character. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was the 11th edit of the user, who should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia community before nominating long-standing articles for deletion. Actually, this behaviour reminds me strongly of Babybunny2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geschichte (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is definitely Babybunny2007. What grievance they have with advertising mascots is unknown. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am not sure this fits the WP:SKCRIT so I did not vote speedy, but it is a keep. Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be SKCRIT number 2 in my opinion. Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - See closed AFD for Mr. Bean (character) above. Same nominator. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing has not improved since the last AFD (soft deleted) and I was unable to locate any additional good sources online. The subject fails GNG and NCORP. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Turkey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable web content, most instances of supposed "coverage" in secondary sources (§ References in the media) are simple attribution mentions. Could not find any instance of coverage sufficient to meet WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, reference spot checks in the section § References in the media are not turning up any mentions; at this point I would be surprised to find more correct claims in that section than incorrect. A Ctrl F search turns up lots of hits for "interesting" but not for "interesting engineering", especially for the subject corp. But they aren't all free/infront of a paywall, please {{ping}} me if someone can confirm any of the mentions. I know that factual inaccuracies in the article are no reason for deletion, but it certainly raises my BS meter and I think any claims suggesting sources meet the WP:GNG should be balanced against the advice in WP:THREE. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bobby Cohn. I was not able to find any sources, and the cited sources are either not reliable or do not mention the subject at all; not even passing mentions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please move these sources into the article or it might be renominated for another AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela (novel)

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

I have been unable to find enough sources to establish notability via NBOOK. At present, the article relies on several primary sources, though I added a single review of the series (Aussie Reviews). I've searched the usual book review sources (Google, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Google Scholar) to no avail. I suggest redirecting to the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book gave me what feels like an absurd amount of false positives, but I was able to find two paragraphs of coverage in The Age. I feel this is a bit too short though, and I'm not sure if Aussie Reviews is a blog or not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. False positives is right. I hoped the author might link some press on his website, but he doesn't, though he does have a set of teaching notes ([13]). This suggests to me that plenty of Australian children might have been familiar with this book through school, but that it isn't that likely to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. The book was published in the 1990s, so there might be some coverage of it hiding in the digitization gap. The three books in this series are probably best dealt with in a single article, but since that doesn't exist, a redirect seems good for now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Fly, Miranda (1999-02-23). "Angela". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.
  The review provides 133 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A warm welcome to the condescension-free zone that is the final chapter in Brisbane-based author James Moloney's trilogy, which began with the award-winning Dougy and Gracey. Moloney has tackled one of the toughest topics facing contemporary Australian society _ the vexing issue of reconciliation _ and has done so in a way that appeals to young readers without talking down to them. The characters are so real you can almost touch them, their turbulent emotions so fully realised you can't help but be moved. ..."
2. On, Thuy (1998-12-19). "Wise owls: These stories are not afraid to tackle the big themes". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 135 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Unlike the three other books, Angela is ostensibly written for older readers its protagonists have already graduated from secondary school and are now undergoing the familiar rites of passage to adulthood. However, starting uni, finding part-time work and falling in love are all incidental to the narrative because the novel is more interested in exploririg issues of black and white, literally and figuratively. With scrupulous care, James Moloney measures the tidal waves of emotion that wash over the friendship between Gracey and Angela. When Gracey becomes involved in the indigen- ous students' support group and starts internalising books called The European Invasion of Australia, the close relationship between the two starts to chafe, particularly when white-bread Angela discovers her family's complicity in the "stolen generations". Moloney manages to tread the socio-political minefield with admirable sensitivity."
3. Briggs, Anne (November 1998). "Gracey's story completed". Magpies. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 40. ISSN 0817-0088. EBSCOhost 1295871.
  The abstract notes: "Reviews the book, 'Angela,' by James Moloney." I do not have access to the review.
4. Hanzl, Anne (February 1999). "Older Readers". Reading Time. Vol. 43, no. 1. p. 31. ISSN 0155-218X. EBSCOhost 1643185.
  The abstract notes: "Reviews the book 'Angela,' by James Moloney." I do not have access to the review.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Angela to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, Cunard! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per sources from Cunard. The two newspaper articles are shorter than I'd like, but I have access to the Reading Time source, which is a bit longer than the other two articles (3 paragraphs), which imo is enough to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and ARandomName. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of alcopops

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

Mostly-unsourced list of different "alcopop" products (only cited reference is an Illinois assembly bill from 1977, decades before most of these products were introduced). The list is therefore mostly WP:OR. There is an Alcopops category, which makes this list article redundant as well. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is very promotional in tone and reeks of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westwind Children's Services

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

No references other than their own (defunct) website.

The article is on a now-defunct company that operated charter schools in Arizona. There are two articles on schools; I don't see Westwind Preparatory Academy as a reasonable redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Arizona. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article, and aside from a reference and a short description, it has remained untouched since. Our standards on articles around schools when I was making lots of articles on schools in 2011 were pretty low, and they are very much not in the year 2024. I just PRODded Canyon View. Let search take people to Westwind Prep, whose basketball program (and associated alumni and controversy) is the sole source of notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Sammi said, this is an artifact article from when standards were different. Since the company is defunct and the standard it would have to meet today is NCORP, deletion is the only useful way to go. There's no good ATD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and West Bengal. C F A 💬 16:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should fall under WP:G4 as the last AFD on this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election) was barely a few weeks ago, and the page is effectively identical, in terms of sourcing. I have tagged it for CSD instead. Soni (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 7 days without that G4, and an IP has already added sources definitely talking about the 2026 elections. Now I support Keeping the article because of said sources Soni (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Never transcluded
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is the 1st relisting as the previous comment just indicated that the AFD discussion had never been transcluded. Right now though, no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2024 Lok Sabha elections has completed and the recent events with parties' performance can be added, which leads speculations for 2026 election development. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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