User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:05, 12 August 2024

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination)	3 months ago	4	6859	1378.94
Collective PAC	3 months ago	1	3426	1304.93
1xbet	3 months ago	1	14357	1288.98
Fenercell	3 months ago	1	3541	1261.75
Uruguayans in Germany (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	0	3831	1243.43
Temple, Indiana	3 months ago	1	4882	1233.77
Mifflin, Indiana	3 months ago	1	4471	1163.67
Céphas Bansah	3 months ago	1	4900	1147.22
P-GRADE Portal	3 months ago	0	3569	1096.65
Kelman's source characteristics	3 months ago	0	3231	1073.85
List of largest Jalisco cities by population	3 months ago	1	4692	1071.81
Family Constellations	3 months ago	4	8121	1069.92
Shreveport mayoral elections	3 months ago	4	6979	1063.72
2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election	3 months ago	4	6473	1062.68
Yorktel	3 months ago	1	3458	1061.16
Social Sciences University of Ankara	3 months ago	3	6851	1046.48
WikiBhasha	3 months ago	2	6509	1043.78
Red Ink Awards	3 months ago	1	5112	1040.85
21st Asianet Film Awards	3 months ago	2	7057	1036.11
Kingo Root (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	1	4526	1019.01
Seneb-Neb-Af	3 months ago	1	6710	1012.02
Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director	3 months ago	2	4808	1001.29
Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure	3 months ago	3	6984	991.16
Karel Průša	3 months ago	3	5962	953.78
Henry Long (speedway rider)	3 months ago	2	5200	940.37

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion of an ATD continuing editorially. Star Mississippi 23:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp×g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for Suriname0's proposal? Any better redirect targets? In cases of marginal sourcing, an ATD can be the best approach.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 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 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset and User:HanStark to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Both editors should refrain from casting aspersions on each other. WP:SPI is where you should inquire about potential sockpuppery, please keep accusations out of AFD discussions which should focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. We need more editors to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I just noticed that the page I edited the infobox of last year was nominated for deletion. Honestly it surprised me because it is one of the most well-written and well-balanced pages in the betting category here on Wikipedia. It excludes any advertisement - as I can see through the history log, the page was violated numerous times by ill-intended users who tried to put their agenda here by placing wrong links in the website link section or tried to put false and poorly referenced information. All these attemps were reverted again and again despite unhealthy attention from the "attackers" - page has been in semi-protection 2 or 3 times as I can see through the history.

Current state of the page has a lot of unreferenced information as well - as someone who did some editing on this article before, I can try and add some resources to the information I can find here (mainly the infobox, controversies and sponsorship section).

Another thing that surprised me was that the initial edit here removed some of the well-referenced (and new) parts of the sponsorship section. These things are easily found on the web and are covered thoroughly by different resources since it is concerns big football clubs and the leagues in Europe.

I believe that under the Wiki rules 1XBET article doesn’t alter from other betting-related pages (especially the ones about the brands and companies), yet still it was nominated for deletion.

In the coming days I will try to add references here and add up-to-date information, removing false or made-up parts of it. HanStark (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added some resources to the page. Also I've tried to add some up-to-date information regarding betting deals, will try to find more information about the company that can be added in the general information section about the company's history.

Hope my input can help the wiki admins. HanStark (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Removed some parts that were mentioned by users below as a sponsored content from paid resources. Went through the article and also removed some of the parts that seems sketchy to me (e.g. sponsorship of not-so-relevant leagues that only have the generic press-release). As of August 12th, the article seems fine for me to stay and meets WP:GNG. HanStark (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~: The article’s citations consist mostly of partnership announcements and sponsored articles, such as those from Outlook India and The Daily Guardian, these two sources are clearly sponsored. I haven’t found any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I tried searching on Google, but it’s full of promotional articles, blogs, coupons, and announcements. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I’m unsure what will happen to this AfD, especially since the nominator is blocked. If someone can share sources with in-depth coverage, they are welcome to do so. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per the review of GrabUp the sources do not appear to be independent, and therefore alignment with the WP:GNG is not shown. C 679 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep I've added new references which meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've also removed a lot of cruft and sharpened the focus of the article. HighKing 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey, can you share the three best sources that can help the article pass GNG/NCORP? GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi GrabUp, GNG/WP:NCORP looks for multiple sources, and while three sources is recommended, only two are required to satisfy the guidelines. Nevertheless, this from The Guardian provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" to meet GNG/NCORP, as does this from Sports Illistrated. There are also other articles which meet the criteria such as this from FTM (Follow The Money) and this in the Sunday Times as well as this report from the Sports Integrity Initiative. HighKing 15:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Checked the sources, and I am convinced that these sources pass the subject WP:GNG. Therefore, Keep. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the sources provided above. C 679 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aydoh8, can you please explain why you decided to "relist" this AfD? WP:RELIST advises a relisting for a number of reasons, none of which are evident here, especially when it now appears that consensus to Keep has been reached. I note your activities at AfDs have previously been called into question. HighKing 11:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I was going to close it as keep, but I didn't know whether it would be reverted by an admin again. I'll probably go ahead and close anyway. Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fenerbahçe S.K.. ✗plicit 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Fenercell

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

Notability is not found; there are also no reliable sources Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Is only a redirect in the Turkish Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K. as per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 10:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Only the first 2 sentences are about Fenercell; the remainder is about Avea (now part of Türk Telekom) and a broad discussion about mobile networks in Türkiye. In that state, it would have been better titled as Avea. Or reduced to a 2 sentence stub on Fenercell, which would sit with the redirect on the tr.wiki article. Regarding the "Fenercell" branding, that uses other providers such as A1 Telekom Austria Group elsewhere [1]. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Fenerbahçe S.K. since its standalone notability is unclear per WP:GNG. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If a merge was to be done, looking at the target article, I think it would best be accomplished by (a) retitling the Fenerbahçe_S.K.#Fenerium section to Licensing and marketing, then (b) appending a short text along the lines of "Fenercell is a mobile network brand operated in conjunction with telephony providers.", but this would need to be supported by a reliable reference independent of the club and its partner providers. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete or redirect: No evidence found to demonstrate that this particular fans' brand is notable. As I said above, the article text has very little about Fenercell so I don't see much to preserve under an ATD redirect and would prefer robust sourcing if text was to be added to the Fenerbahçe article but a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. NLIST also applied, in my opinion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Temple, Indiana

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

The cited history calls this Temple Station, which is what it looks like. I'm not seeing evidence it ever actually developed into a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment
- A. Temple seems to have gotten "Temple" platted at least in the 1920s.
- It's on this 1950 census map.
- Post office applications in 1903 and 1933 just reiterate that it was between English and Marengo. One of the PO applicants was A. Temple.
- This history suggests it was on a historic road of pioneer days, and later supported a school and a church.

jengod (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Jengod, is this a vote to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, along with all the other articles on unincorporated places. What is the point of these? If anyone thinks they are worth having at all, could they not be moved to a new article List of unincorporated places, with appropriate sub-headings Indiana etc.?
Pinging User:Jengod since I neglected to in my relisting statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Liz thanks for the ping. it's definitely not a keep vote. I love expanding geo-stubs and ghost towns articles to save them from deletion, but this one has a vanishingly thin trail, and is probably not encyclopedic, but I just don't have any enthusiasm for it either way. If someone wanted to improve it, maybe those links could help? I'm an inclusionist for the most part so my personal bar to actively vote delete is very high. jengod (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, simply because there is a paper trail and there's many, many other communities that don't even have that, much less any info about it written on Wikipedia. It is also listed on Google Maps as Temple. SouthernDude297 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

GMaps uses WP as a source. Also, the "paper trail" problem is that many of those, particularly GNIS, has decided problems. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if any consensus can be achieved here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

● Keep- per @SouthernDude297 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

●Comment - There is a Quarry Called "Temple Quarry" right next to the coordinates of "Temple", May Have been part of the town. https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'34.0"N 86°24'13.0"W/@38.3420968,-86.4041743,2027m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d38.3427778!4d-86.4036111?entry=ttu 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The "point" of such articles is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of local Indiana history. We have more than enough reliable sourcing to verify this was once a census-documented populated place and we have maps to locate it. We have biographies of soldiers from Temple who died in WWI. We know the community had a post office for many years. Our presentism (historical analysis) seems to think such a small unincorporated place isn't notable, but most Hoosiers lived and died in farm communities exactly like this from the time of the American Civil War to WWI. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at said history, it is most unsatisfactory as a source. There are lots of references to people named "Temple", and some passing references to people said to be "from" Temple (or buried there), but I searched in vain for anything about Temple; and frankly, compared to other such local histories, this one is even more heavily on the chatty and family-story end of things. There's nothing in it that I saw inconsistent with Temple being a locale around a railroad station. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Unreliable source (but generally useful directory of local cemeteries) findagrave.com shows 3 cemeteries located in Temple. The presence of these cemeteries and their almost 100 recorded graves, signal this was an inhabited place. BusterD (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Cemeteries show that there were people, but they are not indicative of towns. Finda-a-Grave also gives a zip code for Temple, which USPS does not agree with.

I also must say that, going back to "platting", what I see isn't terribly consistent with the usual appearance of such places in the area. Platted towns in the upper midwest generally have a stereotypical square grid of streets, even it be only a single such square. partially formed. There's no sign of that here. It's also an act of planning, which in some cases we have explicit statements that the plans never came to fruition. If someone could give me any narrative about a town, I'd be pleased to put that in the article and withdraw this. The issue is that we aren't finding anything inconsistent with the best piece we have, which is that it was a RR station, apparently named after a local, which never developed beyond that though people hoped otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mifflin, Indiana

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

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [2] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [3] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  - That article alone would suggest a WP:GEOLAND pass. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, per the source I linked above and WP:GEOLAND.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Céphas Bansah

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

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject. He has been given significant coverage by plenty of German sources: documentary film King Bansah and His Daughter, Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Das Parlament, The Local, Die Rheinpfalz, Mannheimer Morgen, Lausitzer Rundschau, Deutsche Handwerks Zeitung, and Goethe-Institut

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per StellarHalo Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 13:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

P-GRADE Portal

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

The article lacks of WP:GNG, since it is a project of cloud infrastructure in grid computing with little overall impact and very few available sources, mostly self-published sources of the authors of this project. It seems there are a few other project-related articles that are related to the Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences that seem to lack considerably WP:GNG as well. Recently, other related articles have been already deleted: [4] and [5]. The targetted articles, like this nomination, GUSE, and the deleted article of MTA SZTAKI Laboratory of Parallel and Distributed Systems, were all created by the same user many years ago. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Kelman's source characteristics

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I am guessing it is based on this "Kelman’s source characteristics identify three characteristics of successful marketing communications sources: source credibility. source attractiveness. source power" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-022-10349-3#:~:text=Kelman's source characteristics identify three,source power.. I think this can be made into an article or merged into an article on marketing communications. We should give a chance to the author to fix up. I will ping the author now. O.maximov (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
MattRevell O.maximov (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=kelman compliance identification internalization. It seems like this concept is pretty notable in the communications literature, with Kelman's original paper having over 6,000 citations. However, that doesn't change that this article needs to be renamed and rewritten from scratch (in my opinion). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is quite mysterious. I am presuming that the 'kelman' here is Herbert Kelman. There is quite a bit about him in various sources and he is widely cited. However, this "theory" isn't mention in his article nor in the article on Marketing communications. It also isn't hardly found in G-scholar. A general web search shows that this seems to be a meme for marketing classes, but my guess is that someone other than him gave it this name. His own works are quite academic rather than "meme-y". So I say Delete and if someone editing either of the articles I mentioned decides to add this, that would be great. Lamona (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Municipalities of Jalisco. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

List of largest Jalisco cities by population

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

The article functions as a fork from Municipalities of Jalisco. Unlike the linked article, List of largest Jalisco cities by population, is unsourced and outdated. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Just redirect it, obviously duplicative so doesn't need a discussion. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge per nom, as the information is simply duplicate to another article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, did you mean to vote for redirect? I'm not sure what information you think needs to be merged in, if it's simply duplicate. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if there is anything not duplicated, it should be merged. I think they result in the same outcome (the one page is a redirect to the other). jp×g 🗯️ 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, we have opinions for deletion, merger and redirection so I'm going to relist this discussion for a few days until this gets sorted out and, hopefully, JPxG sees this question addressed to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect: The population figures are unsourced and undated whilst the opposite is true for Municipalities of Jalisco, qualifying its information as optimal and it as the redirect target. Additionally, the redirect should be linked as "Municipalities of Jalisco#Municipalities". XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Family Constellations

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

It has been some time since I have seen an article so thin as this. An amalgamation of a lot of ideas of Bert Hellinger ~~who may be notable in his own right~~ (edit: I decided that he is not notable either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger) but this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice beyond the typical "don't fall for scams" notes and some poorly-considered publications with basically no citations. If we were to remove all the WP:CRUFT, we would be left with a simple statement that "Family Constellations is Bert Hellinger's attempt to do therapy." That's all that I can see sourced properly. Not suitable for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, there has been some research evaluating the effectiveness of Family Constellation method, so I'd disagree with the statement that "this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33528854/

I do agree that the article needs a thorough re-working. Zlmark (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Family Process is a particularly good journal to establish notability. In particular, I note that the current EiC is a professor at a for-profit college Alliant International University and the stated goals of the institute that publishes the journal seem to be aligned more with resume padding at least in terms of rhetoric. Perhaps more troubling, the final author (usually the spot reserved for the PI) is heavily conflicted in producing this research [6] and that goes uncommented on in the paper. jps (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't have enough time to spend with this to actually cast a vote, but I'm a bit skeptical that deletion would be the best outcome here. This seems to have generated a great deal of attention over the years, particularly in German. I found hundreds of passing mentions in a quick search (including in e.g. the NYT and the New Yorker), which to me suggests that sourcing likely exists to support a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to the "great deal of attention in German"? I checked through the NYT and New Yorker sources and was not particularly impressed with them as a means to argue for an entire article to be written.

What I am failing to find are sources which deal with the subject independent of boosterism. jps (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It’s more of a thing in German, Spanish, Turkish and Eastern European language areas if I look at the (language of the) books that come up on Google on the topic. So, it would require checking the wiki pages and newspapers for those countries. I see a handful of books in English mostly by other writers. Ava Ketel (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:Notability, although there is room for improvement, the article seems to have extensive coverage, and the reasoning provided by the OP is largely unconvincing. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments - in agreement with Suriname0, there does seem to be some potential sources, but I have neither the time nor energy to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Per Wolverine XI. ADifferentMan (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Tons of interwiki links, de:Familienaufstellung is quite a substantial article: The topic has spawned research and new developments, even if its origins are only pseudoscientific. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons offered by other editors; also, the article subject is available in 22 languages on Wikipedia indicating a global consensus of notability. 5Q5|^✉ 09:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree the page should be kept, also considering the number of books by Hellinger and other writers on the topic of Family Constellations and Systemic Constellations, many translated in several languages, people will want to look up the article. Ava Ketel (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep these articles. I see no support for Deletion. Editors interested in a possible Merge or Redirect can discuss it at the article talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This AFD was not correctly formatted as a bundled nomination so the remaining articles will have to be handled manually rather than with our AFD editing tools. If the nominator wishes to make nominations of multiple articles in the future, please review WP:AFD to see how one should be set up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

2022 Shreveport mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:

2022 Shreveport mayoral election
2018 Shreveport mayoral election
2014 Shreveport mayoral election
2010 Shreveport mayoral election
2006 Shreveport mayoral election
2002 Shreveport mayoral election
1998 Shreveport mayoral election
1994 Shreveport mayoral election
1990 Shreveport mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist^talk 02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Your argument against deletion seems to emphasize its inherent importance (WP:ITSIMPORTANT). However, on Wikipedia, importance is determined by significant, independent coverage, and unfortunately, there isn't a rule that makes municipal elections automatically notable.

If you want to merge these all into a list (mayoral elections in Green Bay, Wisconsin), I would be fine with that, but for now, we have an unmaintainable mess of hundreds of these mayoral elections without explaining their significance. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana. Other than the 2022 article, the articles are only sourced to primary sources and mostly about candidates without stand-alone articles. The additional coverage of Adrian Perkins and the 2022 election is likely because of editor interest rather than availability of sourcing. And the sources for 2022 are just WP:MILL coverage of candidate entries, endorsements, and results. List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana is the only plausible redirect target; it seems reasonable enough as an alternative to deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Week keep per bluefist, articles have a decent amount of coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Frustratingly newspapers.com is offline for the Wikilibrary, so I cannot clip articles, but simple searching shows extensive coverage of the elections from the 1990s and early 2000s in The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana). NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Coverage has to be lasting for events to be notable per WP:PERSISTENCE, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion seems divided between Keep and Redirect. I don't see support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep on two grounds - the lead article is notable since it was covered in the news regionally, and while there's a chance one of the other elections isn't notable, we can't bulk delete these. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election

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

Same as usual mayoral election results. Easily fails WP:NEVENT, Lancaster only has a population of ~60,000. Last mayoral election I will be doing for a while, as I don't want to overbear everything with more articles. Allentown will be next. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: due to its failure to meet the standards set by WP:NEVENT. The city in question is small, with less than 60,000 souls. Thus, we need to find sources beyond routine reports before we even start writing. This election, lacking concrete, lasting effects on the people living in the city, and receiving little media attention, likely does not need its own article.--AstridMitch (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep - add to Pennsylvania's state political history. The article's inclusion is a positive, not a negative. Scanlan (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I would advise that you read WP:ITSUSEFUL.

"Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say why something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive."

Articles like these lead to hundreds of unmaintainable mayoral election stubs without claims to notability that clog up the site. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep notable city, notable election. Scu ba (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the "keep" opinions makes an argument as to why this election is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Lancaster is a major city, the center of South Central Pennsylvania, is the center of the Pennsylvania Dutch Country, and it has it's own Metropolitan statistical area. The article has existed with no problems since 2009 (Personal attack removed) Scu ba (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators, please take into account arguments based on Wikipedias guidelines for notability when weighing arguments, especially the part of WP:NEVENT that states that "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." -1ctinus📝🗨 20:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete local election with only local coverage. The size of the city doesn't matter - if someone can show this was covered in statewide newspapers I'll switch to keep. I also don't appreciate how hard the nom is fighting to get this deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to do my due diligence so proper arguments are used following the sites notability guidelines. I apologize if I come off as WP:BADGERING. I do regret opening these municipal election nominations, even if I still stand by them. They have been really stressful to deal with honestly. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yorktel

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

Lack of notability established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Which sources are unreliable? BarnyardWill (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please inform me as to why this is being flagged for deletion? The page is written from an neutral point of view BarnyardWill (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is stated under the article name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:COMPANY. The only non-routine coverage is no. 8, but that newsletter article seems rather promotional and not really genuine. (The last sentence is "Contact a Yorktel Microsoft Specialist today at [email protected].") Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Social Sciences University of Ankara

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Now the page is translated. - Altenmann >talk 02:08, 31 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: Now it is translated, seems notable, but unreferenced, i.e., needs work. - Altenmann >talk 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Nothing resembling a WP:DELREASON has been given. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte: When it was nominated it was wrong redirect. Now the page is translated from tr-wiki, but unreferennced. - Altenmann >talk 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Although this article has remained unsourced since its creation, I've restored the version before it redirected to the wrong article and a promotional account added content in the Turkish language. The primary question here should be whether this institution is notable. A quick preliminary search doesn't return much independent and reliable coverage. Might have to dig further to find appropriate sources. Aintabli (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete we have enough unreferenced AI translated garbage as it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. We generally keep state-established universities, as this one clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. It's hard to make sense of how this page has evolved but there is clearly no consensus here yet on what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (non-admin closure)‎ KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiBhasha

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, there are paragraphs in several books: ~~[7]~~ [8]. There's also this Taylor & Francis encyclopedia that cites it, but I can't find the relevant content that cites it anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu, the encyclopedia link you pointed lists sites in general and it even includes this wiki (enwiki). Those paragraphs in the books you mentioned are just opinion of other related contents, it even says it is worth to mention WikiBasha a browser extension like ours. That is literally a mention. And this is just a mention of tools capable of doing what WikiBasha does. If I am getting this wrong, please let me know. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, you still have the paragraphs in the news, which were what I was mostly referring to when I left the reply below. I'll strike the first book I linked per what you said, thanks, but the other links are still something.
On the encyclopedia, like I said, that's a {{notelist}}. We'd need to read where the notes are cited to evaluate if the encyclopedia gives it notability. If you did find the part that cites note 34, please paste it here so we can have a look. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I couldn't find more sources than the Independent above published in 2010. Searching for its former name "wikiBabel" brings mostly pages linked to Microsoft that are currently deleted. Its web doesn't really function, etc. ---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
What about the paragraphs above? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu I have responded above. Please check. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Of the two Keep views, one proposes merging into a nonexistent page or deleting if the target doesn't exist, and the other admittedly relies on ignoring our guidelines. This leaves us with a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Red Ink Awards

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

Non-notable award. References are all announcements of winners and the majority are unreliable, falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate significant coverage that talks about the reward itself. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep but move: It looks like these should be written as "RedInk Awards". I don't see WP:NEWSORGINDIA really applying here: These are awarded by the Mumbai Press Club, so any reporting is unlikely to be paid. Coverage of almost any journalism award is going to be a little iffy on independence due to sources written by journalists with personal and organisational interests, memberships, and possibly voting participation (although these ones are juried). If the Mumbai Press Club had an article -- and I'm not sure it should -- I'd be happy with a merge to section. In the absence of that ATD, because there is post-event reporting in national sources and the awards presenters have included a Chief Justice of India, a State Governor, a State Chief Minister, and a federal Minister (indicating a particular level of repute)[9][10][11][12][13], and it's reasonable for the awards to [continue to] be listed at recipients' articles and this list article facilitates interlinking, I'm landing on retention (possibly slight WP:IAR). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for a good redirect as an WP:ATD but unfortunately one does not exists. "Press Trust of India" and "News Express Service" bylines fit the definition of NEWSORGINDIA 100% though. I am wondering which ones you feel do not fall under that criteria as I would be happy to go back and look (I may have missed something). I think it would be more of WP:ATA as opposed to WP:IAR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The only "keep, but..." assertion is admittedly a mere inference. I don't see a clear move target (barring page creation). On the merits, the sources just aren't there. If they were they'd have been presented over the last month. Lacking independent diverse reliable sources directly detailing this subject, delete (not any atd). BusterD (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: , temporarily, and merge into Mumbai Press Club. Delete if that article is not written. Awards can’t be notable if the awarding body is not notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Valid arguments on all sides, but after a month of debate, no consensus emerged. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

21st Asianet Film Awards

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

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST for navigation reasons. Not all years for the awards have their page but that's not a reason to delete those that exist. See category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."

I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, effectively unsourced. Snarky mind-reading comments not withstanding, even a breakout list requires reasonable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

draft: ? I mean there are sources about who won what award, but just having a wall of text in fancy boxes isn't helping. This needs adequate sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Asianet Film Awards: A notable event requires wp:INDEPTH coverage that preferably lasts. The criteria is not quite achieved through "Winners Lists" on a few niche websites published only in the year of the ceremony. @Mushy Yank, it seems the other ones in the category have varied coverage. Such as https://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/regional/asianet-ropes-in-11-sponsors-for-17th-aisanet-film-awards-150122 for the 17th one. It doesn’t look like the 21st does. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't merge. The target article already has the winners for the awards listed, so there's nothing to merge that would fit there. Nominees who did not win aren't listed for any of the years of any of the awards on the target page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify This meets WP:LISTCRIT, but needs adequate sourcing. Do not merge because having each award year-by-year is a different and valuable way of presenting information, rather than by award as the main list does. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It meets criteria to be a standalone list possibly, but does not meet the notability requirements. It still needs references that discuss it as a whole. Unfortunately, I did a WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything that could be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It is justified merely as a navigation aid. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No comments since the 2nd relisting so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Editors interested in a possible Merge can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Kingo Root

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as previous AfD (Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
~~Support~~ as nominator. Additionally, KingRoot and Kingo Root may be different. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote", this could be seen as a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option. To the nominator, your nomination is seen as your vote, please do not vote additional times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep CNET from 2016 and DigitalTrends are reliable according to RSP. 1/4 of the content is devoted to the malware suspicions so I don't see how it's writen like an ad, nor is "possibly malware" a valid deletion rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Per below, merging would also be good. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep- This is a well known and popular app used to root a phone, it is listed on many sites. (KingRoot is a knockoff of KingoRoot) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge to a related software article, probably Rooting (Android), as was suggested in the first AfD five years ago. There's not really enough coverage of this to satisfy general notability guideline from what I can see. The main sources on the article currently are self-published and it seems that that may be difficult if not impossible to replace while keeping any content of note in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you read the 2015 CNet article? It is decidedly not a primary source. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
That's really the only notable review though that I can see. I still just think that this could easily be covered in the Rooting (Android) article. Many of the other sources on the article seem to be unsuitable; several are just original research forum threads. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Only two are forum threads, one of which represents the entire forum’s position; the other one is indeed a problem. I’m not opposed to a merge as the article is indeed quite short, but I think that there are at least two good sources, the other one being DigitalTrends. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Does the first forum thread not constitute an inappropriate source/original research? Honest question, I would have thought you'd have to get a reliable secondary source reporting on that development instead of a mod on the forum itself. And Digital Trends is a fine source but Kingo is just a small part of that article. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Don’t take my words as gospel, but XDA Developers is a pretty large and influential entity worthy of consideration as its own source. I don’t think it adds to notability, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. And to reiterate comments made on the previous closer's Talk page, a no-consensus close is generally inappropriate for non-admin closure. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Seneb-Neb-Af

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

I can only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. ~~If there should be ATD, then redirect.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: mastaba is not an appropriate redirect target, as he is not mentioned there. It's clear that he's only notable as the person who was buried in his mastaba, though, so the AfD discussion here should centre on whether Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af is notable (we can rename the article after the AfD if so). -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for that, Asilvering. I think we should redirect this article somewhere for now since Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af hasn't been created yet. Is there any target you can think of? I wouldn't support renaming because the article is a mess; lacks sources and sufficient context. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Mastaba is a generic term for a type of tomb. Redirecting there would make no sense. It could be mentioned at Dahshur#Tombs and cemeteries, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I like this target but how is it connected? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
That's where the tomb of Seneb-Neb-Af is. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if having a tomb dedicated/made by/for someone establishes their notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. We know it belongs to him; it's got his name on it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@SafariScribe, it's much better to respond to comments as a reply rather than rewriting your initial talk page comment. To reply to your new comment: XOR'easter is not making any kind of claim about Seneb-Neb-Af's notability. They're saying that the tomb could be mentioned in the article Dashur, since that's where the tomb is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh! Danke. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear on my stance, I think the tomb could be mentioned there, but that it's not so important or well-reported (at this point) to be worth doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Okay, having looked into this a bit more, I don't think we should redirect this at all, since this is a very new finding that has only just been reported on in popular press. We don't even have a site report yet as far as I can tell? I don't think a mention is due on Dashur, and I don't think anyone searching for this name will be well-served by a redirect, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Closure was contested, see my talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman: Not really opposed to Keep as WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. No GNG or SIGCOV. Redirect won't really of any help and there is no coverage justifying the article's existence. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, I don't see sourcing that isn't primary now used as sourcing in the article. I can't find much in my searches, but I don't speak the local language so I'm not sure what would be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and there have been no response to my relisting comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure

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

Fails WP:GNG, with few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources. This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Lists PTGamers.com and Gamerstek.com under external links. Primary source [14] IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Both sites are now dead, which doesn't speak towards their reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Keep - Gamerstek review is archived here: [15]. According to their about page, they had a video game section in Destak newspaper, which indicates some sort of reliability. However, it's a moot point if there are no other potential reliable sources since 1 review is not enough. PTGamers.com review ref seems completely dead, but looking at their archived main site ([16]) there doesn't seem to be an about page or similar, I can't find anything to indicate any reliability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that Push Start ref, which is an independently published digital magazine, seems unreliable to me looking at the editorial page: [17]. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Gamerstek and Mega Score reviews are enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The game got in-depth coverage in a June 2004 issue of Mega Score, including an interview (p.30, 31), and a review (p.70, 71). The only other coverage I was able to find is a brief mention of the game in a 2021 article from the newspaper Observador about video games about Portugal. It's possible that the game got coverage in Portuguese newspapers at the time of release (Newspapers.com has no Portuguese newspapers unfortunately and I wouldn't know where else to look), as the Observator article and the interview in Mega Score indicate that the game was partially funded by Soure city hall. Waxworker (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I found a dead link from TSF (radio station). It might be useful to mention the game on the Visão article. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the reviews presented above. Two reliable reviews, good enough for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Reviews presented show the page can be retained. Add the 1 paragraph in Observador (linked above by Waxworker) https://observador.pt/2021/03/17/nao-e-so-em-civilization-vi-ha-mais-4-series-de-videojogos-onde-pode-controlar-portugal/ ; a 5-page article dedicated to the game: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235915242_Um_estudo_das_dinamicas_de_apropriacao_do_jogo_Portugal_1111_-_A_Conquista_de_Soure_em_contexto_escolar and I think that should be enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The Observador source is a list with a few sentences about the game. SBGames, the paper's publisher, is the "Simpósio Brasileiro de Jogos e Entretenimento Digital", not sure that is enough. IgelRM (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus to Keep there is a challenge on whether sources are of a sufficient quality to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Karel Průša

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources refer to sports results except for one, which is an interview with the person concerned. Searching the internet for "Karel Průša" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated Bedřich Slaný. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Draftify. Competing or even winning at the pinnacle of a sport, whether Grand Prix or Olympics, is not a valid inclusion criterion. SPORTCRIT requires GNG be met and for a GNG-contributing source to be cited in the article. If the "Speedway A-Z" source is not SPS then that would probably satisfy SPORTCRIT, but multiple sources are needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep meet WP:NSPORT He has notable achievements in speedway racing, including a silver medal in the Czechoslovak Individual Championship and participation in the 1962 Speedway World Team Cup. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Draftify - basically per JoelleJay. We've rejected the idea of automatic notability in WP:NSPORTS2022, and the assertion that this person is notable simply for having competed in the Speedway World Cup is basically that. Similarly a silver medal in a national-level tournament, in a minor sport and relatively small competitive environment, should also not be an automatic pass for notability. These criteria were only ever intended as an indication that WP:GNG was likely passed - if doubt is cast on GNG being passed we still need to find sources, and none have been found so far. Delete can also work but it appears that some people are willing to put in the work to get this over the line though to be honest I don't see that happening as likely. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Henry Long (speedway rider)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources provided. Nothing found when searching ["Henry Long " speedway] LibStar (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event, thus he should be able to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't a criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  That criteria can be summed up in two words - utter ******* - too overly biased on circuit racing and overly biased on multi-round championships too IMO, because the sport attracts their fanboys. As with #9, how many classes are there at the Bonneville Speed Week? How many records are up for grabs there by SCTA? Or that does not count as notability despite media talking about the cars in that event?
  I think the criteria for world championship speedway should be at least 2 or more appearances in title clinching finals. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  - You can't appeal to your ideal version of the guideline. It doesn't say what you want it to. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    A criteria for WP:NTRACK above says "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships." This means all finalists at those two events pass notabilty as there are 8 lanes on an IAAF approved track. This is what my point is based on. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    NTRACK is for track and field athletes. The IAAF is the old name of the governing body for athletics, not for speedway. I don't understand why you would build your argument on a notability guideline for an entirely different sport. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with above comment from 5225. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Primary sources only, no indication of notability. No sources presented to prove otherwise. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Abdali Hospital|Abdali Hospital]]||{{Time ago|20240722172528}}||1||5620||0||'''1775.01'''
+|[[#Pure (programming language) |Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240725154356}}||4||6859||0||'''1378.94'''
 |-
-|[[#Pure (programming language) |Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240725154356}}||4||6859||0||'''1364.41'''
+|[[#Collective PAC|Collective PAC]]||{{Time ago|20240729173819}}||1||3426||0||'''1304.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School|Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School]]||{{Time ago|20240727004558}}||3||15819||0||'''1300.05'''
+|[[#1xbet|1xbet]]||{{Time ago|20240729111519}}||1||14357||0||'''1288.98'''
 |-
-|[[#Collective PAC|Collective PAC]]||{{Time ago|20240729173819}}||1||3426||0||'''1290.45'''
+|[[#Fenercell|Fenercell]]||{{Time ago|20240730080258}}||1||3541||0||'''1261.75'''
 |-
-|[[#1xbet|1xbet]]||{{Time ago|20240729111519}}||1||14357||0||'''1274.5'''
+|[[#Uruguayans in Germany |Uruguayans in Germany (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240731065615}}||0||3831||0||'''1243.43'''
 |-
-|[[#Fenercell|Fenercell]]||{{Time ago|20240730080258}}||1||3541||0||'''1247.27'''
+|[[#Temple, Indiana|Temple, Indiana]]||{{Time ago|20240730172844}}||1||4882||0||'''1233.77'''
 |-
-|[[#Uruguayans in Germany |Uruguayans in Germany (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240731065615}}||0||3831||0||'''1228.88'''
+|[[#Mifflin, Indiana|Mifflin, Indiana]]||{{Time ago|20240731164814}}||1||4471||0||'''1163.67'''
 |-
-|[[#Temple, Indiana|Temple, Indiana]]||{{Time ago|20240730172844}}||1||4882||0||'''1219.23'''
+|[[#Céphas Bansah|Céphas Bansah]]||{{Time ago|20240731221223}}||1||4900||0||'''1147.22'''
 |-
-|[[#Saleh Al Abdooli|Saleh Al Abdooli]]||{{Time ago|20240728162925}}||3||4553||0||'''1216.16'''
+|[[#P-GRADE Portal|P-GRADE Portal]]||{{Time ago|20240802074926}}||0||3569||0||'''1096.65'''
 |-
-|[[#Mifflin, Indiana|Mifflin, Indiana]]||{{Time ago|20240731164814}}||1||4471||0||'''1149.15'''
+|[[#Kelman's source characteristics|Kelman's source characteristics]]||{{Time ago|20240802152236}}||0||3231||0||'''1073.85'''
 |-
-|[[#Céphas Bansah|Céphas Bansah]]||{{Time ago|20240731221223}}||1||4900||0||'''1132.74'''
+|[[#List of largest Jalisco cities by population|List of largest Jalisco cities by population]]||{{Time ago|20240801232405}}||1||4692||0||'''1071.81'''
 |-
-|[[#P-GRADE Portal|P-GRADE Portal]]||{{Time ago|20240802074926}}||0||3569||0||'''1082.12'''
+|[[#Family Constellations|Family Constellations]]||{{Time ago|20240729223939}}||4||8121||0||'''1069.92'''
 |-
-|[[#Kelman's source characteristics|Kelman's source characteristics]]||{{Time ago|20240802152236}}||0||3231||0||'''1059.35'''
+|[[#Shreveport mayoral elections|Shreveport mayoral elections]]||{{Time ago|20240730004914}}||4||6979||0||'''1063.72'''
 |-
-|[[#List of largest Jalisco cities by population|List of largest Jalisco cities by population]]||{{Time ago|20240801232405}}||1||4692||0||'''1057.31'''
+|[[#2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election|2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election]]||{{Time ago|20240730010137}}||4||6473||0||'''1062.68'''
 |-
-|[[#Family Constellations|Family Constellations]]||{{Time ago|20240729223939}}||4||8121||0||'''1055.44'''
+|[[#Yorktel|Yorktel]]||{{Time ago|20240802030214}}||1||3458||0||'''1061.16'''
 |-
-|[[#Shreveport mayoral elections|Shreveport mayoral elections]]||{{Time ago|20240730004914}}||4||6979||0||'''1049.18'''
+|[[#Social Sciences University of Ankara|Social Sciences University of Ankara]]||{{Time ago|20240730231406}}||3||6851||0||'''1046.48'''
 |-
-|[[#2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election|2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election]]||{{Time ago|20240730010137}}||4||6473||0||'''1048.2'''
+|[[#WikiBhasha|WikiBhasha]]||{{Time ago|20240731164933}}||2||6509||0||'''1043.78'''
 |-
-|[[#Yorktel|Yorktel]]||{{Time ago|20240802030214}}||1||3458||0||'''1046.61'''
+|[[#Red Ink Awards|Red Ink Awards]]||{{Time ago|20240802030553}}||1||5112||0||'''1040.85'''
 |-
-|[[#Social Sciences University of Ankara|Social Sciences University of Ankara]]||{{Time ago|20240730231406}}||3||6851||0||'''1031.95'''
+|[[#21st Asianet Film Awards|21st Asianet Film Awards]]||{{Time ago|20240731191248}}||2||7057||0||'''1036.11'''
 |-
-|[[#WikiBhasha|WikiBhasha]]||{{Time ago|20240731164933}}||2||6509||0||'''1029.23'''
+|[[#Kingo Root |Kingo Root (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240802165931}}||1||4526||0||'''1019.01'''
 |-
-|[[#Red Ink Awards|Red Ink Awards]]||{{Time ago|20240802030553}}||1||5112||0||'''1026.32'''
+|[[#Seneb-Neb-Af|Seneb-Neb-Af]]||{{Time ago|20240802124302}}||1||6710||0||'''1012.02'''
 |-
-|[[#21st Asianet Film Awards|21st Asianet Film Awards]]||{{Time ago|20240731191248}}||2||7057||0||'''1021.63'''
+|[[#Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director|Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director]]||{{Time ago|20240801133210}}||2||4808||0||'''1001.29'''
 |-
-|[[#Kingo Root |Kingo Root (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240802165931}}||1||4526||0||'''1004.51'''
+|[[#Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure|Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure]]||{{Time ago|20240731173915}}||3||6984||0||'''991.16'''
 |-
-|[[#Seneb-Neb-Af|Seneb-Neb-Af]]||{{Time ago|20240802124302}}||1||6710||0||'''997.49'''
+|[[#Karel Průša|Karel Průša]]||{{Time ago|20240801060352}}||3||5962||0||'''953.78'''
 |-
-|[[#Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director|Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director]]||{{Time ago|20240801133210}}||2||4808||0||'''986.81'''
+|[[#Henry Long (speedway rider)|Henry Long (speedway rider)]]||{{Time ago|20240802031113}}||2||5200||0||'''940.37'''
 |}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Hospital}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective PAC}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1xbet}}
@@ Line 69: / Line 67: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uruguayans in Germany (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple, Indiana}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleh Al Abdooli}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mifflin, Indiana}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Céphas Bansah}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 83: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneb-Neb-Af}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karel Průša}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Long (speedway rider)}}